ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

HL Deb 29 June 1987 vol 488 cc34-115

Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Thursday last by the Baroness Young—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".

3.9 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, in rising to open this resumed debate on the loyal Address, I should perhaps begin by saying that during my remarks I will concentrate upon defence matters and that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will deal principally with foreign policy matters when he comes to reply. But of course my noble friend will also seek to respond to any particular defence points which may be raised during the course of this afternoon's debate.

On the last occasion when we had a major defence debate in your Lordships' House we focused rightly on the essential differences between the policy of the Opposition and Her Majesty's Government. Inevitably during an election campaign such as the one which we have just concluded, the differences between the parties come into sharper focus; but it is perhaps worth saying at the outset that those differences, fundamental and far-reaching though they may be, conceal one essential consistency in that all of us at whatever end of the spectrum we may reside are seeking to maintain the peace for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.

It is therefore for me at least a matter of profound regret that the defence policies of the two main political parties have diverged to such an extent that the British people came easily to the conclusion that the defence of our country was indeed not safe in the hands of noble Lords opposite and their honourable and right honourable friends.

Indeed, as the election campaign progressed, things went from bad to worse as the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition deployed his "Dad's Army" policies for the consideration of the electorate. Now that the campaign is over, your Lordships may be wondering whether there is much more to be said upon the subject of defence, given that the matter was so exhaustively debated during those weeks. I do not intend to deploy all the arguments which were presented then and which the electorate found so compelling. But perhaps I may be allowed to say that I believe we have now put behind us a short period of damaging uncertainty, even mortal danger, for the Western Alliance, as the unilateralist policies of the Opposition, plus the woolly thinking of the Liberal/SDP Alliance, were paraded in front of the world. It was an unnerving time for all those in senior and responsible positions within NATO, particularly those outside the political arena.

In the excitement of the election campaign and the days leading up to it, publication of the annual Defence White Paper on 6th May went almost unnoticed. I therefore welcome this opportunity to bring to your Lordships' attention some of those sections of the White Paper which I consider to be the most significant.

Chapter 1 of the White Paper is called "Maintaining Security". That is the aim that we must bear constantly in mind when we consider the various arms control proposals that are now on the table, and to which I shall come later. To achieve that aim we have to take a hard look at the realities we face. There has been much talk of new realities emerging from the Soviet Union. As the White Paper makes clear, the "new political thinking" introduced by Mr. Gorbachev is a welcome development. But the Defence White Paper also reminds us that Soviet policies have their roots deep in the history of Russia, as well as in the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. We cannot afford to presume that this history and this ideology will be lightly set aside.

We look forward to the day when Soviet leaders will match their new thinking with new action that will truly help to reduce the mistrust between East and West. But we cannot meanwhile ignore the intimidating threat of Soviet arms—a threat that has built up steadily over the past 15 years, the last two of which have been under Mr. Gorbachev.

Soviet defence expenditure has increased by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1970—far more rapidly than the rate of increase in NATO spending. The Soviet Union has reached parity with the United States in strategic nuclear weapons, and has moved far ahead of the West in theatre nuclear systems. It has continued to develop and produce chemical weapons which we in Britain abandoned in the 1950s, and its stocks of such weapons are now huge. And above all the Soviet Union has continued a massive build up in conventional forces. The picture today is one of continued and substantial imbalance in conventional, chemical and nuclear forces.

These remain the realities that the West must face. To drive them home is not to deny the possibility, and certainly not the desirability, of moving towards a better world. A world in which our security is based on a greater understanding and trust between East and West. That has been the West's consistent aim.

We want a relationship with the East that is not merely proof against all possible threats, but is free of such threats. That means working to reduce tensions and to build confidence with the East across the whole range of our relationships, political, economic, commercial and, not least, in the field of human rights.

At the same time our heads must continue to rule our hearts. We cannot let down our guard in the mere hope that everything will turn out all right. That is why this Government remain committed to NATO's dual approach of defence and detente, as the best—and only—means of ensuring our national security.

Perhaps at this point I may pay a tribute to the contribution made by General Bernard Rogers, in his eight years as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. His period in office has been an eventful one for NATO, and General Rogers has throughout played a distinguished role. We are deeply grateful for his efforts and wish him well in his retirement. At the same time, of course, the new SACEUR, General Galvin, has our best wishes as he prepares to take up his appointment.

This year's Defence White Paper sets out again the strength of our commitment. The vast majority of our forces are committed to one or other of the three major NATO commands—Europe, Atlantic and Channel. We remain the only European NATO member to contribute to all three elements of NATO's triad of forces, strategic nuclear, theatre nuclear and conventional. We remain determined to maintain our four main roles in NATO: that is, the provision of nuclear forces, including an independent strategic nuclear deterrent; the defence of the United Kingdom itself; land and air forces for forward defence on the mainland of Europe; and maritime forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel.

The Government have devoted, and will continue to devote, the resources necessary for that purpose. The defence budget for the current year, 1987–88, is close to £19,000 million, an increase of over 20 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. This has enabled us to proceed with the modernisation necessary to maintain our nuclear and conventional capabilities.

Your Lordships have debated fully—most recently last December—the need to update our independent nuclear deterrent. The case for it is set out, fully and clearly, in the Defence White Paper. I need not therefore repeat all the arguments here; but perhaps I may just remind your Lordships of two essential points. First, Trident is intended to provide the minimum capability necessary to maintain a credible strategic nuclear deterrent from the mid-1990s, when Polaris nears the end of its useful life, until well into the next century; and, secondly, Trident represents the cheapest way of achieving that minimum capability. Indeed, the latest estimate represents a real reduction of some £738 million over the original.

At the same time as these necessary measures are being taken, our conventional forces will continue to benefit from the substantially higher spending on defence under this Government. Setting aside the cost of our nuclear forces, we have spent in real terms since 1978–79 some £16 billion more on conventional defence than if spending had continued at 1978–79 levels. Or to put it another way, 95 per cent. of the cash increase in the defence budget since 1978–79 has gone on improving conventional defence.

The Defence White Paper sets out the scale of the conventional improvements that this funding is making possible. Equipments ordered or committed since 1979 include no fewer than: 55 major ship orders; 82 aircraft for the Navy; in excess of 500 aircraft for the Royal Air Force; 7 Challenger tank regiments; 23 battalions of armoured personnel carriers; and major enhancements in artillery, air defence and infantry weapons and equipment.

These orders represent a substantial programme, the benefits of which will continue to be felt as the equipments come through into service over the next few years. In the case of the Fleet, the great majority of the frigates and submarines we have ordered have yet to come into service and major programmes are continuing to update missile air defence systems, underwater weapon systems and sonars. The Army's contribution to BAOR will be significantly enhanced with the formation next year of a 12th in-theatre armoured regiment, equipped with Challenger, with the remechanisation of 6 Air Mobile Brigade beginning next year and with the orders for battlefield helicopters announced in April.

The RAF is in the middle of a major modernisation programme of which the Tornado alone is costing £10 billion—more, that is, than Trident—and is part of a continuing programme that includes the Harrier GR 5 (of which the first production aircraft is to be handed over to the RAF this Wednesday), the modernisation of the RAF's tanker fleet (which is itself an important force multiplier), the recently announced orders for support helicopters, and a massive investment in air defence, including the acquisition of AWACS.

The cost of procuring this equipment, which the Armed Forces must have if they are to be able to meet the threat on the modern battlefield, is the largest single element in the defence budget. Its share of the budget has increased from almost 40 per cent. to about 45 per cent. over the last nine years, and this year will represent some £8,500 million.

This makes it all the more important to get the best value from the money we spend. In recent years successive Defence White Papers have described the efforts we have made to achieve this by improving our domestic procurement arrangements and by seeking greater collaboration with our allies. We are pressing on with these efforts.

We continue to put great emphasis on more and sharper competition. Whether the project is to run nationally or collaboratively and is for hardware or for services, we aim to subject as much of it as possible to competition. We know that this gets the results we need and, in the process, encourages industry to be more efficient and therefore better able to win work overseas. This remains the guiding principle for all our business, and the test of its success is that British companies win—often in competition—the vast majority of our contracts.

We are also working to make the Procurement Executive more commercially minded. This has involved a range of initiatives such as the appointment of prime contractors, the move to fixed-price contracts, tougher negotiations, reduction of stage payments and incentives for prompt delivery. These initiatives have all helped in securing true value for money for the taxpayer.

International collaboration in defence procurement continues to be a key element in our drive to secure greater value for money and increased interoperability with our allies. Within Europe, the revitalised independent European Programme Group continues to make good progress. When the group's defence ministers met last week we were able to note that, in the past two-and-a-half years, 13 harmonised operational staff targets have been achieved and 11 collaborative technology projects initiated. The ministers agreed on the need for a more comprehensive and strategic approach to collaboration in defence research, in order to reduce wasteful duplication of effort and make better use of the scientific resouces available to defence in Europe. In NATO, too, the enhancement of armaments co-operation remains a high priority. Seven multilateral projects responding to the Nunn initiative are now getting under way, and progress is being made in other areas too.

Collaboration is not just about value for money. It has a wider and equally important dimension. This Government remain committed to working within Europe to strengthen the European contribution to the alliance. There can, of course, be no substitute for the transatlantic dimension of the alliance. The commitment of US nuclear deterrent forces to NATO, the presence of substantial US and Canadian forces on the ground in Europe, and the readiness of our transatlantic partners to reinforce Europe if required remain essential for our common security. But a more cohesive Europe can make a contribution to the alliance that is far greater than the sum total of individual European contributions.

More effective co-operation is the key to that greater cohesion in Europe. We have continued in our efforts to achieve that by maintaining and developing our bilateral relations with our European allies, and by working with them in the multilateral groups devoted to European security and equipment collaboration: the Eurogroup, the Western European Union and the Independent European Programme Group. I have already referred to the work of the IEPG. I myself had the opportunity to address the WEU Assembly last November. Since the reactivation of the WEU in 1984, the institution of twice-yearly joint meetings of both foreign and defence ministers of the seven member countries has provided a valuable forum for discussion of defence and security issues of significance for Europe.

Moving further afield, we retain important commitments outside the NATO area, and your Lordships will have noted the full report of these activities in the Defence White Paper. We continue to maintain a substantial military presence for the defence of the Falkland Islands, although the concentration of the garrison at Mount Pleasant, and the ability that the new airport there gives us for rapid reinforcement of the islands if necessary, have permitted us to make some reductions in forces without affecting our capacity to defend the islands and deter aggression. In addition, we undertake a variety of activities in other parts of the world.

Your Lordships will no doubt wish me to say a few words about the situation in the Gulf, which is an area of particular concern at the present time. We have since 1980 provided two warships on continuous patrol in the vicinity of the Gulf to provide reassurance to our merchant shipping. Earlier this year, in response to continuing attacks in the Gulf, a further warship was assigned to the Indian Ocean area to supplement the "armilla" patrol, as it is called. Royal Navy vessels are accompanying a significant proportion of British or dependent territory-owned or flagged merchant traffic through the most threatened areas. Some 120 merchantmen have been accompanied in this way since January. They do not, however, convey or provide close escort. The safety of the patrol is, of course, kept under continuous review, particularly after the tragic accidental attack on USS "Stark" on 13th May. Armilla's operations remain non-provocative and de-escalatory; but its warships are prepared to exercise their inherent right of self-defence, both for themselves and for merchant ships entitled to their protection.

Perhaps I may turn now to arms control. The Defence White Paper points out the significant progress made last year in a number of areas, notably the major moves towards an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces and the signing in September 1986 of the first major arms control agreement since 1979 on confidence and security-building measures in Europe. The West has continued to press for the arms control priorities established by the Prime Minister and President Reagan in November 1986 and subsequently endorsed by NATO Ministers. These are: an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces; a 50 per cent. reduction in the strategic arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union; and a global ban on chemical weapons. And, in view of the importance of the conventional imbalance, particularly at a time when significant nuclear reductions appear possible, the alliance is also committed to achieving conventional stability in Europe at lower levels on the basis of the initiative set out in the Brussels Declaration in December.

Since our last debate on these issues last year we have seen the Soviet Union's acceptance of the NATO proposal first made in 1981 for the elimination of longer-range intermediate nuclear missiles (in the 1,000 to 5,500 kilometre range band), although it still wants to retain 100 warheads outside Europe, and its removal of the linkage, which the Soviet Union had itself imposed, between this issue and progress in negotiations on other issues including the Strategic Defence Initiative. This April, in response to long-standing alliance insistence, the Soviet Union finally agreed that shorter-range intermediate nuclear land-based missiles in the range band of 500 to 1,000 kilometres should be dealt with in an INF agreement. Two weeks ago NATO Foreign Ministers, meeting in Reykjavik, reached an agreed position on the basis for continuing negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union covering both longer-range and shorter-range intermediate nuclear missiles. This includes the aim of achieving the global elimination of these weapons.

We now face the opportunity of early progress towards an agreement that will significantly reduce the Soviet nuclear threat in Europe. If achieved, this would include elimination of the SS.20 missile, a particularly threatening weapon, the removal of which has been an important alliance objective ever since it was first deployed in 1977.

The new challenge for the alliance is to build on these opportunities so as to enhance our security. The Defence White Paper rightly cautions against taking steps, however seductive they may at first appear, if their result is to jeopardise the peace and freedom that we have now enjoyed for over 40 years. For the forseeable future, Europe's security must depend on nuclear weapons. That is why we must proceed with caution, and in concert with our allies, in seeking to make progress in this area.

It is interesting to reflect what noble Lords opposite might have said had they been standing in my shoes today. I wonder how they would have answered the following questions. How could the alliance expect to defend itself against the strength of the Warsaw Pact's conventional, chemical and nuclear forces without a credible and effective nuclear capability? Would we be seeing the prospects of progress in arms control that we now face had it not been for NATO's determination to keep up its strength? Who seriously believes that there would have been any prospect of an agreement to remove Soviet SS.20 missiles from Europe were it not for the alliance's decision in 1979 to deploy US cruise and Pershing missiles here?

It is difficult to see, in the events of the past 12 months, a clearer justification of NATO's dual approach of seeking political dialogue and greater understanding with the East, while retaining our ability to deter Soviet aggression.

I can conclude only by saying what a blessing it is that this Government have been returned to power.

3.32 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for opening the debate and for that part of his speech which covered the defence field. His political introduction was predictable and unimpressive, and we shall have to wait and see what use he and his colleagues make of their opportunity.

I will refer to some of the points raised by the noble Lord as I proceed, although I do not propose to deal with defence, but rather with foreign affairs, as my noble friend Lord Irving will wind up later on defence matters. However, I should like to take this opportunity of extending a very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who will be winding up, to his important new office and to wish him well in it. We are also glad that his predecessor, the noble Baroness, to whom well-deserved tributes were paid last week, is to take part in this debate.

The range of complex problems facing the world are so numerous that it is really impossible to deal with them fully in one speech. It would have to be one of those speeches which leave time behind and encroach on enternity. Furthermore, there are very strict limits as to what we as a country can do to resolve those problems. That is why the need to co-operate closely with our friends and allies and to sustain a regular dialogue with the Soviet and Chinese governments is essential. Efficient and imaginative diplomacy has never been as important as it is today.

In the last debate on the Address on 13th November, we dealt at length with the Reykjavik summit and its consequences. It then seemed to be a strange paradox—what appeared to be a serious failure was also described as a success. Mr. Shultz saw it as: Perhaps the most productive meeting that has ever been held by the two leaders of these two countries. The Soviet Union also made some optimistic remarks. Events since then have shown promise and some very substantial proposals have been made by both super powers. In a curious way, Reykjavik—the apparent failure—was a watershed in modern international relations.

As the noble Lord has just reminded the House, there has also been another Reykjavik on 11 th and 12th June, when the Foreign Ministers of NATO came to certain crucial conclusions which he has mentioned; namely, that they would support the double-zero option with respect to longer and shorter intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe. Further, they recommended that a mechanism be established to discuss reductions in conventional strength involving the 23 members of the two alliances and consultation with the 35 members of CSCE.

The noble Lord referred to "a new challenge", and the implications of these agreements are clearly of the first significance. It gives the United States an unambiguous go-ahead for an INF agreement with the Soviet Union. It now seems a real possibility that President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev will meet in the autumn and sign an INF deal. I used the word "possibility" for nothing is certain in this uncertain world, but the House will be glad to hear the view of the Government on these developments, and especially on the prospects of an autumn summit.

The attitude of the Government and of the Prime Minister has not always been clear or consistent. We know also that the German Chancellor has had his difficulties. The relative strength of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries is a matter of acute argument. I recollect that in the November debate I was in a little trouble with two or three noble Lords opposite on this very point. One of them was the late Lord Trenchard, whom we shall miss greatly in our foreign affairs and defence debates.

The relative strength of the two blocs is a matter upon which it is very difficult to find agreement. Therefore we must welcome the second suggestion in the recent Reykjavik proposals. The Vienna talks have been going on for 14 years without any appreciable result. The proposed new talks between the 23 members of the alliances are likely to be extremely difficult and it will be very helpful if, when he winds up, the noble Lord can give the government view on the prospects.

Mr. Gorbachev's tactics are skilful. They consist first of making heavyweight proposals of a most significant character and then of sharply criticising the West, including this country, for dragging their feet in response. The reaction of the West to these charges in usually one of irritation mixed with counter-charges of insincerity. These attitudes on both sides are not helpful because they frustrate and confuse.

We are now told that the Soviet Union is about to table a draft treaty at the Geneva arms talks which would have the effect of halving the super-power arsenals of long-range strategic missiles, and as we know, the United States tabled its own draft last May. The United States considers this to be more important than the European treaty on short-range and medium-range missiles. What view do the Government take of that analysis? We have not heard quite so much about SDI recently. Is it still likely to be a stumbling block? Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify that matter also.

Everyone wants a major measure of disarmament —Mr. Gorbachev for pressing economic reasons, President Reagan because he would like to end his Presidency on a high note—and we understand that—and the rest of us because of the unpredictable consequences of failure. In this country we are frustrated because we have no seat at the conference table, but we urge the Government to use all their influence and all their endeavours to achieve a successful settlement before the end of the year. At this moment it seems that that is a very real possibility, and it would be a disaster for mankind if the opportunity were missed.

The Prime Minister has indicated that Mr. Gorbachev is a man she could trust and do business with. I noted with interest and agreement the words of the right honourable and learned gentleman the Foreign Secretary in the other place on Friday when he said: It is indeed the impact of Mr. Gorbachev on Soviet policy which enhances the prospect of change in the previously frozen immobility of East-West relations."—[Official Report, Commons, 26/6/87; col. 159.] I and other noble Lords have made similar remarks during the last two years and we know that Mr. Gorbachev has embarked upon a huge and difficult task. He will not abandon his own concept of Marxism, but he is trying to modernise a rigidly conservative government machine run in the main by rigidly conservative officials. One cannot read the press about his efforts without feeling a certain sympathy as a politician with what he is trying to do. We cannot help him a great deal but we can wish him well. He knows perfectly well that a nuclear war would destroy Russia as well as Western Europe and that the build-up of 50,000 nuclear warheads by the two powers is nothing but a wicked absurdity.

Chernobyl changed people's perception of nuclear weapons. It poisoned a large number of people in the area of the power station and it poisoned sheep as far afield as north Wales. The need for the reduction of these weapons and the need for the INF treaty is immediate. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary recognised this in his speech in another place last Friday.

I should like to believe that there is no real difference of opinion between the parties on this point. If there is anything on which there should be all-party agreement it is the need to achieve disarmament as soon as possible. The words in the gracious Speech about the need to, work for greater trust and confidence between East and West and generally for arms control, a ban on chemical weapons and other major steps, are words we can wholeheartedly support. I had a feeling during the recent election—and I must say this to noble Lords opposite—that the Conservative Party went too far in its policy of trying to frighten people. There was no attempt at constructive explanation, and I do not think that it is good for British politics.

I said earlier that we have no seat at the top table. But we do have a seat at the table of the European Community which is still potentially the most powerful combination of nations in the world. However this community of democracies stumbles from one economic crisis to another and the summit currently taking place faces a major budgetary crisis. The fact is that the Community became technically insolvent two months ago. We really are, in fact, bankrupt. As the House is aware, there is an immediate problem and a longer-term problem. We understand that the Government—quite rightly in my view—wanted to put the short-term difficulties on the agenda of the meeting; that is, farm prices and budget deficits. Unhappily, the attempt was frustrated and the summit will try to evolve long-term plans to deal with agriculture and the budget. I wish those involved well, but they will have to do better than they have in endless meetings in the past.

The CAP is a huge barrier to progress; there can be no argument about that. Successive British governments have had rows about the CAP with varying results and the accession of three Mediterranean states has made things far more complex. It would require 12 Solomons to find a permanent solution to the problem of 12 different systems of agriculture and 12 disparate economies. The CAP is an intolerably expensive drain on resources and is responsible for endless squabbles.

The question of the British rebate is also on the table this time and perhaps the noble Lord, when he winds up, will tell us whether the Fontainebleau formula will remain. The consequence of this mess—and that is what it is—is that the Community's standing generally and its influence in foreign affairs will be damaged at the very time when it needs to be strong. We therefore welcome the undertaking in the gracious Speech to work for the reform of the CAP and again we hope the Minister will tell us how the Government propose to make progress and what major proposals they have to put to their colleagues.

Political initiatives by the Community have not been frequent but, on the whole, they have been sensible. And if the Community was economically sound they could be very significant. For example, we recall the initiative on the Middle East and the efforts that have been made since then. But the cruel and indefensible Iran-Iraq war continues with unabated ferocity and the suffering of the Lebanese is a classic example of man's inhumanity to man. In a shifting scene, it now appears that an international conference involving the Soviet Union is a developing possibility, though it seems that the United States has some doubts about it. Mr. Shimon Peres visited this country on 23rd June and I understand that he made some constructive suggestions about a UN-sponsored peace conference although Mr. Shamir later appeared to dismiss it. Mr. Peres said that Soviet participation and closer relations with Israel would depend upon Soviet attitudes to Jewish emigration and the resumption of diplomatic relations which would follow a relaxation. It is a delicate situation but the end of the cold war in the Middle East between Russia and Israel, which has existed for so long, would seem to be essential as a prelude to talks of a settlement. It would be interesting to hear the noble Lord's view on that point.

There is a need also to define rather more carefully how many British naval ships are operating in the Persian Gulf at present and exactly what is their purpose. Have we increased the number of ships in response to a request from the United States Administration? There may be perfectly sound reasons for these naval movements, but it would be helpful if Parliament could be told the full story. We have after all maintained neutrality in the Persian Gulf for a period of seven years, and it is important for Parliament to know whether there has been a change of policy and what the reasons are. A strenuous co-operative effort to bring peace to the Middle East should be one of the prime objectives of foreign policy at this time.

A nuclear war is not likely to break out in Europe but it could be sparked off by a reaction from a conflict in some flashpoint in the world such as the Middle East. I hope that the Government agree with that conclusion.

There are other matters which are very relevant to this debate but which time will not allow me to discuss in any detail. The new situation in South Africa following the election there leaves the central problem unresolved. The Prime Minister was unable to spend much time at the Venice Conference, for reasons of which we are aware, but it would be helpful to know how the Government react to the Canadian Prime Minister's initiatives on South Africa. Sanctions will be on the agenda at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in Vancouver in October. That, in my view, is going to be a meeting of historic importance. I hope the Government will, on this occasion, be able to find common ground with our Commonwealth partners on the question of economic sanctions.

I also hope that we shall be given opportunity during this Session for debates on the Falkland Islands and the possible resumption of talks with the Argentine; on developments in Hong Kong where much is taking place; and on the lack of developments in Namibia where nothing is taking place. All these are very much in our minds.

There is one piece of good news which we should today warmly welcome; namely, the decision to allow democratic elections in South Korea. We are all delighted about this and wish the people of South Korea every success in their struggle for democratic rights. But it is on the great issues of disarmament and East-West relations that we expect the Government to concentrate with determination and without prejudice. In doing this they will receive our support.

3.48 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I, too, should like to wish the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, good fortune in his new job at the Foreign Office and to join in what has been said about the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The whole House has learned to know her as a most careful and courteous debater and answerer of questions. Many of us also know her as an answerer of the letters which, behind the scenes, keep party contact ticking over.

The Queen's Speech states that the Government will stand fully by our obligations to the NATO alliance and that they will play a leading part in the development of the European Community. To that we say Amen. These are organisations of democracies and with certain hiccups, they always have been. Unfortunately, this country is no longer a democracy in the sense that the others are. It would be possible to say, "But we never were", because of the constitution of your Lordships' House; but the world has grown used to that over the centuries and I think we are not reproached with it by foreigners.

I refer much more to the constitution of the other place. After all, the idea of parliamentary democracy is that people should elect a Parliament which more or less reflects the diversity of their own opinions. Parties are generally represented in Parliament in the same proportion as votes cast for them in the election. A certain imprecision has always been tolerated. If a party has a few more, or a few less, MPs per million votes cast for it, okay, we take that in our stride. Now, something new is happening. Imprecision has become dangerous distortion.

A convenient measure is to divide the number of votes cast for each party by the number of MPs it obtains—the votes-to-Members ratio. We must then compare the votes-to-Members ratio of different parties. We can conveniently do that by taking the number of votes needed to return one MP of the party where that figure is lowest—that is, the party most favoured by the system—and compare it with the number of votes needed to return one MP of the party where that figure is highest—that is, the party least favoured by the system. That ratio is a measure of the justice of a democracy. The higher it is, the less just and the more distorted a given democracy is.

Let me now give that ratio for some of the world's principal democracies—those which we consider to be our like, our friends, and, in most cases, our allies. Unfortunately figures for the United States House of Representatives seem to be unobtainable. But since the US constitution is a presidential and not a parliamentary one, it is in any case different from those of the other democracies of our association.

In what follows, I shall in all cases ignore the small marginal parties. The ratio in Germany is 1:1. There is no distortion. The German system is just. In the Netherlands, it is 1.2:1, hardly less good; in Italy and Belgium 1.3:1; in Finland 1.4:1; in Australia 1.5:1; in Ireland 1.6:1; in France 1.9:1; in Spain 2:1 and in Canada 3:1. Of course, Britain is last in that table. But I wonder how many of us know the current figure. It is 9:1. At the last election, and the one before was not very different, it took nine times as many votes to put an Alliance Member into the House of Commons as to put in a Conservative Member.

The basic idea of democracy is that public affairs should be conducted in accordance with the will of the majority of the people, and not in accordance with the will of the minority of the people. We roundly condemn electoral systems, such as that of South Africa, which are designed to keep the majority out of power. But what is our own record?

Except for the coalition government which won us the Second World War, this country has not had a government with a majority of the votes behind them since 1935. We have a system three times as distorted as the next worst among our friends, and nine times as distorted as the best. We have had government by the minority for 42 years. Add to this—and this affects our place in the world directly—that in the European Parliament British Members alone are elected by that nine times unjust system. Strictly, as a significant section of the British electorate is denied any representation in Europe at all, it is infinitely unjust, but let us leave that aside. Not only is British democracy distorted, but also the collective democracy of emergent, free Europe.

My point is this: how long can we continue to hold up our heads in the company we keep? Our friends are already compassionate beyond what we should expect. We must put that right. We must rejoin the true identity of the West. That identity is democracy. To rejoin it requires proportional representation. Neither Conservative governments nor Labour oppositions have in the past shown themselves capable of recognising the need for change. Let them recognise it now.

What of the foreign and defence policies—

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Kennet

—of this by now quite undemocratically elected Government? I see by the approval of the two major parties that my point has not been fully taken. It is that we orient our foreign and defence policies on an association of free democracies. But we are not ourselves a democracy in the sense that the others are. I cannot put the matter clearer than that.

The most difficult problem continues to be our relations with the United States. Whether it is the most important is a very different matter and one to which I shall return. The Government seem to have developed a rule of thumb that not more than one difference at a time with Mr. Reagan is to be allowed, even if that means pressing further and further into insalubrious company and further away from the world's real problems.

I suspect the reason that Mrs. Thatcher went along with Mr. Reagan in torpedoing UNCLOS, into which earlier governments had put such fine work, was that she was already at odds with him over the Soviet pipeline. The one-at-a-time rule does not allow for that second simultaneous action by Mr. Reagan, which also offends common sense or international law and hurts our manifest long-term interests.

Such a situation is arising once again. The Government have surely been right to keep our naval presence in the Gulf discreetly inconspicuous yet visibly separate from that of the United States. The oil route there is far more important to us, in Europe, than it is to the United States. It would have been a mistake to allow our vital interest to be protected or squandered according to the whims and misunderstandings of a government with only a marginal interest in the matter.

It was not Iran which attacked the "Stark", taking many lives, but it is against Iran that the American sabre is now rattled. To take half the tanker fleet of Iraq's ally Kuwait under the United States' flag is not a neutral action. The Soviet Union has now offered to attempt a joint peace proposal in the Gulf war but the United States has apparently rejected that—perhaps the Government can give us news—after eight months of negotiation in New York.

The Soviet Union now proposes to provide a number of its own tankers to be put under the Kuwaiti flag. Admiration for the way the new Kuwaiti diplomacy is making friends for Iraq is surely in order, but the West should not attack Iran any more than it should secretly supply Iran with arms in return for hostages.

We should also watch from a disapproving distance the new United States attempt at hostage-buying, this time with Syria, which Sir Geoffrey Howe rightly says has not yet purged the atrocity of its government's part in the London attempt to blow up the Israeli airliner.

The Middle East and the Gulf is apparently the Government's one permissible disagreement with Washington now. But look at the price the Government pay to observe their own pointless rule! We see the Royal Navy exercising around the world with a United States Navy newly become provocative and dangerous, exercising under the so-called New Maritime Strategy which says, "Fire, not in defence, but on evidence of hostile intent", that evidence to be evaluated by the military commander on the spot—a fire-first strategy.

We see British munitions, especially Blowpipe, turning up in Angola and Afghanistan and nearly turning up in Nicaragua. We hear the Government in this House saying that there is nothing they can do about that because they dare not ask the United States to go through the usual civilised procedure of undertaking not to resell weapons it may buy from us. We now hear, on the other hand, Sir Geoffrey in the House of Commons quite uncharacteristically putting a cold war point about Afghanistan. He said, "How can anyone complain about the Afghans being armed against their oppressors?" "Ah, yes, how true", we say, and at first thought we all applaud. But can the Government see any alternative to Russian withdrawal? And can they say they think Blowpipes are going to make that withdrawal more likely? My Lords, neither side will win militarily in Afghanistan, however many weapons they are provided with.

I turn now to disarmament. The INF proposal is fine as far as it goes, but we have already seen how easily it can be upset by the imbalances in other categories of weapons which would be revealed—the conventional and shorter-range nuclear ones—and by location problems with what is left. Some of your Lordships may remember that I have been saying for many years in this House that progress on disarmament depends on an overall plan. What is now on offer from Moscow is precisely an overall plan. That fact has been understood for two and a half years by those in this country who do their homework, and it is now understood and approved by the public at large.

Mrs. Thatcher is right to go to Washington, where there is a dangerous vacuum at the centre. Will she now seek once again to motivate Mr. Reagan to get an overall agreement? And will she help him to understand that he cannot have both that and SDI? And thereafter will she try to keep him motivated. Fiddling around with dribs and drabs in the Gorbachev age and shooting ourselves in the foot with SDI would be a ridiculous and tragic waste of a great opportunity. The Labour Party has already expressed that view correctly and eloquently this afternoon.

If INF is to be the first part of an overall disarmament process—and we shall not get it unless it is—then we must be careful not to plant the seeds of any overall problems for the longer term. Unfortunately that is exactly what the Government seem to be doing, or rather tolerating, about inspection. INF inspection would, in the words of a senior American official, be very intrusive, and because our Government would not be a signatory to the treaty American and Soviet officials would have rights in this country that no Briton would have. The same would be true for others of our European allies.

Soviet officers, under American auspices, would be able to walk into British, Dutch, Belgian, German and Italian defence establishments, probably without notice, to verify the absence there of nuclear missiles, while our governments and our armed forces wait outside to be told whatever is thought good for us. And Americans would verify the absence in Russia of weapons which can hit us but not America. Once again, they would tell us what they thought fit. This is to place our very gravest national interests once and for all in the hands of the super powers acting jointly. Verification procedures agreed for this disarmament measure will set a precedent for all later ones; and they should be derived from the confidence-building measures already agreed at Stockholm which are multilateral, not from the bilateral procedures of SALT.

Given reasonable good sense, and given that vacuum at the centre in Washington, it should be possible for the European members of NATO to get disarmament and arms control moving. The fact that the new SACEUR has come tarnished by Reagan Administration illegalities in Central America, domestic as well as international, will ensure a low American profile while he is gaining our trust. A proper disarmament process is now available and HMG, our Government, should now push at last at the open door.

If the path to disarmament has become less stony, other problems increasingly threaten us. Look at the new nexus of horrors which many of our existing policies are feeding. First, take the arms trade, legal and illegal; and note how the wider distribution of ever more highly sophisticated so-called conventional weapons makes nuclear weapons look more desirable wherever a war is not being won. Argentina is helping Iran. Who precisely is helping Pakistan? Someone is. The United States tolerates Israel's nuclear programme.

Secondly, this world of weapons everywhere means that the drug industry can obtain them through the vast sums they dispose of; drugs are the world's most marketable cash crop. Thirdly, where is the drug industry's dirty money laundered? It is done through the banking system and its by now entirely anachronistic secrecies. Where do the world's tyrants keep their money, much of it filched from the aid and loans they have received from us? They keep it in secret bank accounts in "respectable" countries.

Fourthly, what is the meaning of the United States debt to the world? When Mr. Reagan came in, the United States was the world's greatest creditor. The present situation is, in the words of the Washington Post, "beyond the world's experience". The United States foreign debt is now 420 billion dollars; that is greater than the foreign debts of Mexico, Brazil and Argentina added together. Mr. Reagan will be leaving corrective action to his successor.

Just as the United States, being Israel's patron, cannot lead the West in a search for peace in the Middle East, so the United States, being the world's greatest debtor, cannot lead the West in a search for the solution to the world debt problem. That is the new nexus of world problems.

European community—not only the European Community, the institution, but also European community as a general spirit and fact—is the first part of the answer. If the Government see this, they can expect much support from these Benches.

4.9 p.m.

Lord MacLehose of Beoch

My Lords, I am somewhat embarrassed to be placed so highly in this debate and to follow three speeches of such a wide-ranging and fascinating nature.

I wanted to intervene in order to make only two points. The first concerns the situation of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. I am very glad that in the spring, with the assistance, I am sure, of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the Foreign Office announced that a further small intake of Vietnamese refugees into this country would take place. I very much hope that the object of that initiative, which was to encourage other countries to follow suit, has been successful. But in any case, the long-term prospects of these unfortunate people are bleak, particularly those in closed camps. The position is also bleak for the people in Hong Kong who see no end to their enforced hospitality.

Meanwhile, the leadership in Vietnam is changing, but we do not know with what effect. However, I hope that the Government, in close consultation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, will keep a close watch on what is happening because it is possible that conditions in Vietnam will improve. If so, and if arrangements could be agreed which provided for the repatriation of some of these people in conditions which the UN High Commissioner and the British Government were satisfied were humane, then of course they should be made. The countries of South-East Asia are also looking at this possibility and the Hong Kong refugees should not be left to the end of the queue.

The other point is specifically about Hong Kong and I am very glad that the gracious Speech included a reference to our responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong and co-operation with China in carrying out the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The joint liaison group, charged with some of this work, is building up a most satisfactory record of problems dealt with. By and large this is an area of very great success for the Government's policy.

The economic situation of Hong Kong remains extremely good, but the prospects of change in 1997 worry many people. This worry seems to me inevitable at least until the basic law which will be the constitution of the future special administrative region of Hong Kong has been published. This will not be for a little time yet. Meanwhile Hong Kong has been very much in the news because of the process of internal consultation in Hong Kong taking place about how various boards, and in particular the legislative council, shall be composed.

There is room for many different points of view about this. In Hong Kong they have been advocated with enormous vigour. Advice from outside about the outcome would be about as welcome as advice from outside would have been during our general election. However, eventually a decision will be taken and a great deal has been said and written about the possibility of conflict between this process and the basic law of China. Obviously development of their government must be acceptable to people in Hong Kong; hence the process of consultation now being conducted by the Hong Kong Government.

On the other hand, certainly the composition of the legislature of the future special administrative region of Hong Kong will be as set out in the basic law of China now being drafted by the Chinese Government, also in consultation with people in Hong Kong. There is danger that the two processes may become competitive. We could have a chicken and egg situation. We want neither a scrambled egg nor an agrieved chicken. However, the processes should be mutually constructive and supportive and neither should pre-empt the other.

The Governor of Hong Kong has wisely said that political change should be cautious and gradual. In this case the problem of conflict would not arise. Pragmatism and common sense have been the foundation of the Sino-British joint declaration, and I have no doubt that with them this problem can also be solved. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will play his part in solving it.

In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his new portfolio. It covers an area of the world with the faster economic growth, and one in which I am extremely interested. There is one cautionary tale that I might put to him. The Briton who in my view has had the greatest influence on Sino-British relations in the last three decades produced a book entitled What I Know About China. All 144 pages were blank, the point being that one should beware anyone who claims omniscience about China. I wish the noble Lord well.

4.13 p.m.

Lord Ashbourne

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I too was delighted that the gracious Speech opened with a reaffirmation of the Government's determination to stand by our obligations to the NATO Alliance. This was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she moved the humble Address on Thursday. The gracious Speech also refers to the modernisation of the independent nuclear deterrent through the introduction of Trident, and if anyone is still in doubt as to the validity of this programme I would commend to them the admirable article entitled The minimum deterrent on pages 39 to 42 of Part I of the Statement on the Defence Estimates.

There has been much talk recently in some circles about getting rid of US forces from Britain. The article entitled The American Pillar on pages 18 and 19 of the White Paper cogently argues against this. Paragraph 9 is particularly lucid when it states, talking about the presence of US forces in Europe: It is ultimately on Soviet perceptions of the strength and cohesion of the Alliance, and specifically the inevitable involvement of the United States in any conflict in Europe, that the success of NATO's strategy of deterrence depends". This was a good start, but further on there was to be more welcome news when it was stated: Measures will be introduced to assist the merchant shipping industry. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard this because I had begun to get the feeling that talking to the Government about the rundown of the merchant fleet was rather like punching a haystack: one felt one just was not getting through. Judging by the number of Questions noble Lords have put down on this topic, it is clear that a great deal of concern is felt in your Lordships' House on the rundown of the Merchant Navy and it is indeed encouraging to know that your Lordships' concern, together with the views of Sir John Fieldhouse, currently Chief of the Defence Staff, may have helped persuade the Government that the time for action was nigh.

Indeed, as a result of his experience in the Falklands campaign, Sir John had this to say: I cannot say too often or too clearly how important has been the Merchant Navy's contribution to our efforts. Without the ships taken up from trade, the operation could not have been undertaken, and I hope this message is clearly understood by the British Nation". Turning now to the protection of merchant shipping, the Ministry of Defence has stated that it intends to maintain the level of escorts in the fleet at about 50. It is now faced with the problem of doing this when the defence vote will be declining by 5 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years. Clearly the defence vote is under great pressure and the temptation to cut corners must be obvious.

I hear a rumour which ought to worry noble Lords. At present escorts have a life of about 18 years with a major refit after nine years. The rumour I hear is that the lives of these escorts should be extended to about 24 years with refits after six, 12 and 18 years. I am lucky enough to have a company motor car and every 50,000 miles the company trades it in and provides me with a new car. It does this because it has found from experience that running them on after 50,000 miles becomes uneconomical. Repair bills escalate and breakdowns occur. It is the same with escorts. There comes a time when the end of their prudent life is reached and any attempt to extend their prudent life is likely to prove both costly and uneconomical. This rumour is therefore worrying and we must see if we can find some efficient way to cut this corner.

I now turn my attention to the defence estate which is managed by the Ministry of Defence and the Property Services Agency. The defence estate is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. It occupies over half a million acres, not far short of a thousand square miles, and has the rights over a further 90,000 acres mainly for training areas and ranges. This is an enormous area, about six times as large as the Isle of Wight. In its findings the National Audit Office had this to say: The Ministry of Defence have recognised that they are still maintaining an Estate which, excluding training areas, is too large for its purpose". A little later the report concludes: There is a need therefore for a stronger discipline on the Ministry of Defence and service managers to use the Estate's resources more effectively. Observing that the defence estate is manifestly "tail" rather than "teeth", and that MoD policy is to focus on "teeth" rather than "tail", is not the answer to sell off some of the huge and ill-managed estate in order to keep the fleet afloat?

Finally, I wish to focus on the greatest single factor in this matter, namely the man. Since the Falklands campaign there is no doubt that great attention has been paid to increasing efficiency in the armed forces. This has resulted in an increase in stress, turbulence and separation in the lives of servicemen. The White Paper states in paragraph 612: There remain shortfalls in both officers and other ranks in certain specialist areas, where competition with the Civil Sector for scarce skills continues unabated". I quote again from paragraph 613: The level of voluntary outflow by officers is still a cause for concern in some areas". I am not sure that these bland statements do not conceal more than they reveal. Well-informed senior officers appear to be concerned over the failure to retain highly-trained officers and senior ratings, while the long-term ability of the services to recruit adequate personnel, both in terms of numbers and quality in the face of increasing competition from industry and commerce, looks increasingly doubtful. The old adage "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" is still relevant today. I am particularly pleased that studies are being carried out on the attitudes of service wives which might contribute significantly to a serviceman's decision to end his career early.

I do not wish to sound alarmist and I do not believe that the current personnel situation is critical yet. However, unless the powers that be appreciate the dangers and take firm and timely action to reverse the outflow of skilled personnel the situation could speedily deteriorate. I should like to conclude by asking the noble Lord the Minister who introduced today's debate to communicate this concern to his right honourable friend in another place.

4.23 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, we have already shown this afternoon the ridiculous nature of the arrangements for the debate on the gracious Speech—mixing up foreign affairs and defence—about which we have complained on all sides of the House before. The Government started off the debate with a speech entirely related to military matters without any word relating to foreign affairs. This lets down the quality of debate in this House.

The opening speech by the Minister could only be described as sterile and negative. If he had bothered to read in the Guardian today the article by Robert McNamara who knows a fair amount about defence affairs, probably more than the noble Lord the Minister, he would have seen every point he raised contradicted by the former defence Secretary of the United States. I quote: The West's current nuclear strategy is bankrupt". He argues for a change to one of mutual security and writes that, we cannot have both deployment of Star Wars and arms control…Our current nuclear strategy is indeed bankrupt". Why does the Minister not read the words of his peers and address himself to them? I do not ask him to agree with them, but I ask him to argue with them and I ask him to argue with the case that has been put by the Labour Party over the past few months instead of simply dismissing it as though he did not understand it. He talks about cruise and the forcing of the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. Cruise was not deployed to force any kind of arms talks. Cruise was deployed to reassure the European leaders of NATO that they were still under an up-to-date nuclear umbrella. What was the response? The response was not to come to the negotiating table; the response was that the Soviet Union then increased its nuclear missiles. That is the kind of infantile argument that we have heard for so long from the opposite side of the House.

I want to address myself to three sections of the debate this afternoon on the gracious Speech. I have said that it is a mish-mash to put together foreign affairs and defence, yet there is one perspective in which not just foreigh affairs and defence occur, but in which foreign affairs, defence and economics are inter-related. That is the case that I want to put before your Lordships this afternoon for consideration.

We have heard a great deal over the last few weeks about "Great" Britain. A country can only be great and influential if it has a sound economy. A country can have an independent foreign policy and an independent defence policy only if it has a sound economy. We have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the boom in the British economy. Boom, my Lords? Manufacturing investment is 20 per cent. below what it was eight years ago. Manufacturing output is 5 per cent. below what it was eight years ago. Our inflation is higher than that of any of our major competitors, despite the reduction in commodity prices which is bankrupting many third world countries. I ask your Lordships to compare West Germany where prices are actually going down, with the Government's claim that over 4 per cent. inflation is a victory.

Unemployment has trebled. Where is unemployment as high a percentage of the employed force as in this country? Education and training are condemned by everyone in the professions as being starved of funds and resources. What about culture? Are we no longer concerned with organisations such as the British Council? Are we no longer concerned that the Royal Shakespeare Company may have to quit Stratford and may go bankrupt for lack of £1 million? Are we not concerned about the declining influence of the World Service because it does not have the resources? Is this Great Britain?

The Government may say that there was a world recession. The Government played a very large part in creating that world recession by their monetarist policy in their first two years from 1979 to 1981. During that time they squeezed and destroyed a great deal of industry. Moreover, because of their monetarist policies, they increased unemployment and, despite the windfall of North Sea oil, that money was not invested and had to be paid out in dole to the unemployed. Certainly the Government deepened the British share of the depression so that our people suffered much greater hardship than those of all our competitors. I do not ask your Lordships to take my word for it. Listen to this quotation: The full magnitutude of Britain's decline has been concealed by one thing only: North Sea oil. Here was the windfall of the century. It should have been husbanded and deployed in long term investment, to break out of the spiral of low productivity and low wages. Instead it has been treated like a win on the Pools. The Government has used it to hide the collapse of our industrial performance". Neil Kinnock? No, my Lords, Margaret Thatcher on 16th April 1979.

Let me give one warning. All the indications suggest that by this time next year we shall be in a much deeper depression than we were even at the beginning of the 1980s—the American deficit, international indebtedness, the refusal of the Germans to reflate and the loss of 5 to 10 per cent. of North Sea oil every year. The Government have destroyed this country's defences against it. That has a direct effect on our influence in the world. So has defence policy, my second point. I shall not deal further with the bowdlerisation of the serious defence debate taking place all over the world today that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

The gracious Speech states that the Government are to go ahead with the introduction of Trident. They think they are, and they say they are, but I would not mind taking a bet that they never do. If they do, it will cost £11.5 billion. What will that do to conventional defences? During the election I was down in the constituency of Devonport. Noble Lords should talk to the dockyard workers there. They have changed their minds radically since 1983. Since the dockyard was privatised 4,000 workers have been sacked and another 3,000 jobs are at risk. The dockyard workers now take a very different view of the Government's defence policy and its threat to them than they did in 1983 and they take a very different view towards the defence policy of the Labour Party. It was Mrs. Thatcher again who said on 23rd December 1982: Our policy is the zero option". What happened when the Russians offered the zero option? Mrs. Thatcher said: We will not stand for the denuclearisation of Europe". What does she mean? Which is true? Here is an opportunity, an opportunity that has not come in our lifetime, for genuine disarmament for the reduction of those dreadful nuclear weapons in Europe, and our Prime Minister says: We will not stand for the denuclearisation of Europe". So far as concerns the Labour Party's policy, eight out of the 16 members of NATO today have no American nuclear arms on their territory. We would be the ninth member. What has happened in Canada? Does Canada feel threatened because it does not have nuclear weapons? What has happened in Scandinavia? Does Scandinavia feel threatened because it does not have nuclear weapons? But above all what has happened in Japan? Japan would be the great prize. Japan would be worth having. Certainly Britain in its present state would not be considered worth having by the Soviet Union, but Japan would. Has the invasion of Japan been prevented by its nuclear weapons? Of course it has not. But the policy of insisting on independent nuclear weapons is an invitation to the very dangerous trend throughout the world today of proliferation of nuclear weapons. If you want to see it, look in the Middle East, look in Asia, look in South Africa and there you will see the grave dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And we have already seen what can happen accidentally.

I should like to ask one defence question of the noble Lord who is to reply. It has been suggested that the Government's policy is based on the fear that if we get rid of nuclear weapons in Europe there will be an overwhelming superiority of conventional weapons on the Soviet side. I ask this specific question because all kinds of figures have been bandied about. Taking Western Europe alone, ignoring as one must ignore the Soviet conventional weapons that are directed towards China in the East, what is the Government's view of the balance between Soviet conventional forces and NATO conventional forces in Western Europe?

The Government talk about preserving peace. Have nuclear weapons preserved peace in Afghanistan? Did the nuclear threat prevent the invasion of Afghanistan? Did the nuclear threat prevent the invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia? Did the nuclear threat prevent Suez? Did it prevent the Falklands War? Did it prevent the war in Vietnam, the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of the Dominican Republic or the interference in Nicaragua?

Baroness Elles

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for one moment. If Afghanistan had had nuclear missiles, if Hungary had had nuclear missiles, if Czechoslovakia had had nuclear missiles, does he think they would have been invaded? That is a question the noble Lord will have to answer.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I do not have to answer that question because if the noble Baroness really believes that the British Isles would be safe from Russian nuclear weapons because we had nuclear weapons she is living in fairyland. Any suggestion that the British Isles can threaten the Soviet Union is outside the realm of reason.

I have one word of warning before I leave the defence side of the issue. Every Member of the House hopes that there will be a nuclear arms deal for Europe but let us not fool ourselves that that will be an arms deal for all nuclear weapons in the world, particularly if nuclear weapons are transferred from Greenham Common to Holy Loch and put on submarines or fitted on to aeroplanes. Do not let us believe that the agreement that may be reached on medium and short range weapons in Europe will prevent the continuation of the long range strategic missile arms race based on SDI which is already under way and which can very well threaten the whole existence of the world. I wonder if any noble Lord here is old enough to remember these words of the late and much lamented Fred Astaire. In 1959, in a film called On the Beach, Fred Astaire said: War came because countries thought they could defend themselves with weapons they could never use without committing suicide". I commend that thought to this noble House and I suggest that outside this House those millions of people who were terrified by the accident at Chernobyl are looking to this Government and to this House and to the other House to ensure that the dangers of Chernobyl are removed as speedily as possible. If noble Lords want to find out the attitude of the people of this country they should go to Wales or to Cumbria and ask the farmers what has happened to their sheep and what is still happening to their sheep.

Both these issues—economics and defence—bear directly on foreign affairs. The Prime Minister was apparently very good at poetry at her school in Grantham. She quoted Francis of Assisi when she first won an election in 1979 and this time she quoted Kipling. But she quoted selectively. She quoted the first four lines. Perhaps I may remind her that those lines are followed by these: For heathen heart that puts her trust in reeking tube and iron shard, All valiant dust that builds on dust, and guarding, calls not thee to guard, For frantic boast and foolish word—thy mercy on thy people, Lord! I suggest that the right honourable Lady reads the whole of Kipling and not merely the beginning.

I summarise the effect of this country's economic and defence situation on its foreign policy in this way. Unless we have a renewed economic strength, which was destroyed at the beginning of this Government's reign, and unless we get rid of the fantasy of being a major military power, our foreign policy will remain in servitude to the White House.

If we wish to play a part in the development of the world at the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century, we must get rid of those arm twistings that led to this country disgracing itself by allowing foreign planes to fly to an independent country to bomb its people and attempt to assassinate its president—the President of Libya. We must get rid of those influences which allow us and force us to support the policy of the United States in Nicaragua. We must get rid of the policies which have led to us temporising continuously on the question of South Africa and on the international question of Namibia. We must rid ourselves of the burden that is forcing us and that has forced us, to leave that valuable and constructive organisation, UNESCO.

Britain's task in the world can and should be that of playing a full and leading part in the resolution of conflicts. We have a better opportunity now that liberalisation has started to move in the United States. I am not saying that it has gone anything like far enough, but it has started to move. We should recognise that the old cold war warrier type of talk is not only out of date but highly dangerous in the present circumstances when we have 50,000 times as much power to destroy as we had at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We have a part to play in Namibia. It is an international issue where we have never put our full weight. We have a part to play in South Africa where we are frightened of antagonising the investors. We have a part to play in the solution of the problems of Nicaragua. We have a part to play in getting rid of the occupiers of Afghanistan. We have a part to play in bringing to an end the war in the Gulf. We have a part to play in trying to resolve the complex and disastrous issues in the Middle East. We have a part to play in the strengthening of international organisations such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the EC. However, we can only play that part if we get rid of that idle boast, of that fantasy of the past; if we recognise ourselves as a middle power with great influence throughout the world and use that influence on the side of peace, negotiation and conciliation.

Above all we have an important part to play when it comes to our relations with the third world. They could he vital in staving off the economic disaster which faces us over the next few months. They could be vital if we can find the means of reflating through the third world; of giving the third world the purchasing power to enable it to buy the goods which 3 million people in that world would like to be making and can make, but which at present they are prevented from making.

Finally, it is many years since this phrase was coined but it is as relevant today as it was then: Science has turned the world into a parish, but men have not learned how to be neighbours". The people of this country, and the youth of this country, can give an important lead and can co-operate with those in other countries in giving the lead to find the means of' becoming neighbours in this global parish.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I believe that the two vast subjects of foreign affairs and defence are—as I think—misguidedly taken together. Without unduly boring your Lordships I propose to deal chiefly with the basic theory of defence—the raison d'étre of defence, as the French say. I shall also touch on one or two major points of foreign policy with which my noble friend Lord Banks will deal, chiefly as regards Europe.

First, even if it is accepted that so long as the totalitarian Soviet regime persists there must always be some rivalry, tension, or practically cold war, between East and West, it must surely be obvious that the unrestrained piling up of nuclear weapons by the two super powers is as absurd as it is potentially dangerous. Apart from stimulating the imaginations of scientists and making money for great corporations and institutions, what is the point of being able to knock out your opponent 10 times over when once should be enough? So-called nuclear parity is therefore a nonsense as such. It may sometimes be useful as a criterion in a particular negotiation. For instance, the Russians are surely right in maintaining that, if the zero-zero option for intermediate nuclear weapons has any real meaning, it must include Pershing Is in Germany. I should welcome an expression of the Government's view on this rather vital point. Are they in favour of the Germans' contention or not? However, exact parity could well be abandoned as a general objective.

The fact is that all such weapons might, subject to verification, be reduced by anything up to 90 per cent., and in some categories abolished altogether, without adversely affecting the security of either side. The same applies to nuclear tests. To get somewhere near this is presumably the object of the all-important talks now in progress in Geneva. So far I believe that most people in this country, if not all, would surely agree.

Pending complete disarmament, whether nuclear or conventional—I repeat "pending complete disarmament"—it is also obvious to my mind that if only to avoid being put in a position of dangerous inferiority each super power must possess the assured capacity to inflict intolerable damage on the other in response to a possible nuclear first strike against it by the latter. That is a formula which has gained acceptance over the last 20 years. Any such first strike can, in such circumstances, surely be discounted as a suicidal act were it not for one rather grim possibility; namely, the possible domination of space following on the likely installation by one side of some effective anti-ballistic missile system which would place the other at its mercy, or by the capacity to destroy all the opponent's satellites on which the capacity to conduct any warlike operation primarily depends.

In either event, the perceived victim might risk some clearly desperate move, perhaps by way of an all-out first strike against the other side's nuclear installations. That cannot be excluded. Therefore agreement on the neutralisation of space is essential if peace—peace in the sense of no nuclear war—is to rest securely on MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to which I have already referred. Short of actual surrender by the West, or the collapse of the East, or of course complete nuclear disarmament, it is unlikely in the reasonably near future to rest on anything else. I hope that most people, including the Government, would agree even as far as this.

But provided agreements on arms limitation and on space are reached and that we can assume that United States forces, perhaps in reduced numbers, will remain in Europe—two very important provisos—it must still be admitted that some Russian offensive in Europe is just conceivable, the Soviet High Command possibly believing that a first use of nuclear weapons contemplated in the NATO doctrine of flexible response, is only a bluff and that a purely conventional war would be likely to result in Soviet victory.

Happily, however suspicious we may be of Soviet intentions we can, given the provisos I have just made, effectively rule this possibility out of our calculations. For even assuming that such a war would be non-nuclear—a large assumption—and that the West might at least be forced back to the Rhine, what would the Russians gain by occupying a ruined, potentially rebellious and almost inevitably reunified German Reich and facing also a collapse of world trade, given a no doubt continuing war with America, if not with China, the ultimate outcome of which, even if a nuclear holocaust was averted, would be entirley unpredictable? Nation states, I believe, have been described in the past by one philosopher as "cold, mindless monsters." Maybe: but they can hardly be as stupid as all that.

However, there does remain the real possibility—and this we must face—that some armed collision between the super powers in other parts of the world, presumably in the Middle East or the Far East or, rather, in East Asia, must result (as indeed it would) in hostilities also in Europe. After all, you cannot be at war in one part of the world without being at war in the other. In the Gulf there is happily now some reason for optimism. If you look at the situation objectively the actual interests of the two super powers, in spite of the bellicose Mr. Weinberger, seem here largely to coincide; just as, if reason is any guide, they might be found to coincide in the Middle East generally. I am talking of interests. Both are keen to keep trade open in the Gulf and both want the absurd Iran-Iraq war to end. It even looks as though this fact might be recognised in a Security Council resolution that, I think for the first time since the war, will show, if it comes about, that the United Nations is working in the way designed for it by the originators of the charter. This will be a really momentous development if it ever comes about.

Of course if you believe that it is the conscious intention of Soviet leaders, or some of them, to conquer the world and impose on it a communist system based on Moscow, or even if you believe that their dreadful Marx-Leninist system is incapable of reform and must therefore always result in physical expansion of the state, then all attempts to reach any agreement with the Soviet Union are useless and should clearly be abandoned. However, if you believe that the Soviet leaders are perhaps as frightened of war as we are, being chiefly concerned in seeking ways and means of preserving their own ascendancy over Russia and their empire, you may expect them to be anxious to avoid anything which might involve them in hostilities with a rearmed United States. We should do well to see to it, if we can, that this attitude is also that of the American Administration.

Nevertheless, in the event of war breaking out in other parts of the world, the scenario in Europe—always supposing that the Americans were there—would be much the same. The Russians would undoubtedly take the offensive without having recourse to nuclear weapons and the issue would largely depend on whether, on our side, SACEUR authorised the first use of those weapons. Many competent military experts have now come to the conclusion that in practice he would never be authorised to do anything of the kind.

However, assuming that United States forces would remain in Europe and that a decision to make first use of nuclear weapons still rests with SACEUR, what would be the role of a "independent" British, and indeed of a French, strategic nuclear force? Always supposing that he decided, in accordance with the NATO doctrine of flexible response, to make use of battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons, we must assume, or we would be very rash not to assume, that unless the Russians at once withdrew—which must be thought to be highly unlikely —a nuclear interchange would take place in Europe. In such an event the British and French strategic nuclear and indestructible weapons would certainly, I believe, have a valuable second-strike capability, at least deterring the Russians from using their own strategic weapons to bombard Britain or France for fear of themselves being victims of nuclear bombardment in return.

If, on the other hand, SACEUR for any reason did not make use of tactical nuclear weapons, then it is almost inconceivable—I do not know whether the Government would agree here—that neither the United Kingdom nor France could threaten the use of their strategic weapons against the Russian heartland. For what had deterred the Americans would, a fortiori, deter them. In other words, no British prime minister or French president could give the order that would almost certainly lead to the incineration of London and Paris. In such circumstances, non-nuclear war would probably continue to be non-nuclear.

If the Americans withdrew their forces from Europe altogether, the whole scenario would naturally be changed—and I think for the worse. It does not look as if such a withdrawal could possibly be in the interests of the United States. It may well therefore be regarded as unlikely. But we must surely have some idea about what would then be the position not only of ourselves but of our Community partners.

The first use of either the British or French nuclear strategic weapons in any conflict being still out of the question or, rather, their threatened first use being in no way credible, such an advance could presumably only be halted by the use of non-nuclear arms by the European powers. For it could hardly be assumed that the Americans would necessarily be in the war at all and, even if they were, that they would be prepared to make use of their own strategic missiles, thereby putting their own cities at risk of destruction.

There is, however, every reason to suppose that unless they had devoted very large sums to a strengthening of their conventional armaments—which might at that time be politically impossible—the European allies, though still to some extent protected against a (highly improbable) Soviet nuclear attack, might well be overcome—on land at least—by greatly superior Russian conventional forces. I say "improbable" because the Russians would no doubt wish to halt on the Rhine and then to negotiate peace, failing which they would seek to achieve victory by an air and sea blockade of the remaining Western European countries.

Conscious of these dire possibilities, what would the European Community be likely to do? Even if they thought—no doubt with some justification—that, given the disadvantages of so proceeding which I have already described, the Soviet Government might long hesitate before actually invading Western Europe, more especially if serious resistence were to be contemplated it seems probable that the Western European governments would try to reach some kind of working arrangements with the clearly dominant power.

We might well thus be heading towards what has often been described as the "Finlandlisation" of Europe, the Germans possibly (for Russian reasons) still remaining divided and even the European Community continuing to exist with, however, much of its trade conducted with the East rather than the West. I suppose the hope might be that in the end such a solution might improve the lot of the Soviet Eastern European satellites, but it is certainly not one which would be likely to be in the best interests of the Western European democracies, if indeed they were likely in such circumstances to remain democracies at all.

If there is anything in this brief analysis, one thing stands out a mile. Pending real progress on disarmament, whether nuclear or conventional, the chief and indeed essential factor in the defence of the United Kingdom and Western Europe is the continued presence on the Continent of at least considerable United States forces. Anything which might result in the withdrawal of these forces—which as we know is often threatened in the United States Congress—such as the denuclearisation of this country and the consequent closing down of all United States military bases here, must surely be avoided at all costs.

During the election the Labour Party entirely discounted that risk, maintaining with some apparent logic that a British nuclear deterrent could not affect the issue of any war. To my mind what the Labour Party did not appreciate was the psychological effect that the opting out of nuclear defence by the United Kingdom coupled with the actual eviction of many Americans from their bases would be likely to have on the general United States will to help defend Western Europe and, notably of course, the maintenance (for what it is worth) over it of the famous nuclear umbrella.

At the same time the United Kingdom should use all its influence to induce the Americans to make the necessary concessions, notably as regards the research and development of the SDI, of which mention has already been made, and also of ASAT (anti-satellite activity) in order to reach permanent agreement with the Soviet Union on arms limitation. We should use all our influence to induce them to make those necessary concessions, which may not be very great. I believe that we should also be well advised to recommend that the conclusion of such agreements should not be linked with complete agreement on the limitation of conventional armaments or with the fulfilment of the engagements on human rights that were entered into by the Soviet Union at Helsinki in 1975.

As regards the replacement of Polaris by Trident with which, after their victory, the Government will no doubt proceed, they must surely recognise that whatever their protestations such action will in the future—as I think was hinted by the noble Lord, Lord—Ashbourne—inevitably involve some weakening of British conventional forces at a moment when, if only to induce the Americans to stay, it is imperative that all such forces in Europe should be strengthened and streamlined —harmonised, if you will—to the limit of the possible. Indeed this, together with the necessity for agreement on finance, must remain the chief objective of the European Economic Community.

All that is therefore logically necessary in the way of a replacement for Polaris—as the Alliance rightly claimed in the election—is a more modest, less expensive, less powerful but still credible nuclear force with a credible second strike capability. Here I throw in a purely personal suggestion which, or some adaptation of which, might possibly be helpful in solving an inevitable dilemma. If it is accepted from my general analysis that any strategic United Kingdom nuclear force, however necessary, can only have a second strike capability, and if it is also accepted that a Russian nuclear first strike without any warning is doubtfully conceivable, might it not be possible to agree, perhaps in some arrangement with the French, that a Trident submarine, no doubt with fewer warheads, should not be permanently on patrol? In that event, the existing, very expensive, programme might be substantially curtailed and the money so saved voted to the strengthening of our conventional armaments. Before dismissing out of hand any such idea, perhaps the Government will consider its implications and eventually write to me about it.

I may have exceeded the time allocated to me this evening but finally I suggest that when considering our future defence and indeed our foreign policy generally, in a general way we should be well advised to base our calculations not so much on presumed Soviet intentions as on presumed Russian national interests. The overriding interest of both East and West is clearly the avoidance of nuclear war—some may, and do, say any war. Maybe. But from a non-nuclear war, however horrible, nations could eventually recover; from a nuclear war, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, never tires of pointing out, there could be no recovery at all.

5.5 p.m.

Lord Greenhill of Harrow

My Lords, in spite of what has been said in some parts of the House I think that most fair-minded people would agree that the conduct of our foreign affairs over recent years has been consistent and has had some reasonable success. In my view our influence has been used constructively on the whole in many international situations. However, foreign policy, which must necessarily embrace defence policy, became the subject of controversy as the election drew nearer. The policy of the Opposition could be represented as threatening such success as the Government have achieved and challenging long-established and accepted policies.

In my view the majority of the population was right to be wary of stated Labour policy and was entitled to believe that some of the assertions of loyalty—for example to NATO—however sincerely stated, would not have been fulfilled if a large Labour majority had emerged in the new Parliament. Such a majority would inevitably have included a substantial number of Members whose loyalty to their party's leadership on this matter was at least questionable. But that is past history. There is now a chance for the Secretary of State to pursue the present consistent and thoughtful policy.

Will this really be enough? There are currently problems of great danger which obstinately remain unresolved, notably in the Middle East and South Africa. It would not be realistic to count on rapid solutions in either of those situations. Of course there are less urgent problems within the Commonwealth, for example, with which we can help, and also in matters of aid and debt we have a role to play. However, dominating all this is the East-West relationship and the political and defence consequences of arms control negotiations. There we have a significant part to play and in that area the prospect of progress seems reasonably good.

Looking further ahead, there are longer-term problems which require urgent and profound study. I was struck by a sentence in a recent article by Ian Davidson in the Financial Times in which he said: I have the strongest sense that we may be standing on the threshold of a period of change and movement unlike anything we have seen for 40 years". I agree with Mr. Davidson, as I am sure will some of your Lordships. That situation is coming about through the interaction of certain new factors, of which I shall summarise six.

First, in many countries a new generation is inheriting power. That is obvious in the United States, France, Germany and this country, for example. That generation has little or no experience of the events that determined much of our foreign policy in the post-war era. Secondly, whereas in many areas care for human rights is increasingly influencing governments, in other areas, such as the Middle East, reactionary fundamentalist policies are taking hold.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, Mr. Gorbachev has taken the predictability out of Soviet policy and is trying (and maybe succeeding) to effect a revolution in Soviet thinking and action. If he finds the West slow to respond he has only previous Soviet governments to blame. Fourthly, and very disturbingly, the United States administration is sadly diminished and its machinery of government has proved unequal to its responsibilities. The present administration will be succeeded by one, whether Democrat or Republican, with new ideas and unfamiliar attitudes and with Europe less central to its preoccupations.

Fifthly—and this is encouraging—Europe is at long last becoming aware of its vulnerability, economically as well as militarily, and is ready, or seems ready, to take action. Lastly, the consequences of Japanese financial and economic power on its political and military attitudes are problematical. Nor can possible developments in China and in the Pacific area be clearly foreseen.

To add to these factors there is the future development of the third world and inevitable upheavals in Africa to be faced. Our foreign policy has from time to time been criticised for being reactive only. This is sometimes true and it is very easy to become overwhelmed by the pressure of current events which are often of only passing importance. But there is surely now as never before an urgent need for the speculative examination of long-term possibilities in international affairs. It is certainly true that it is always the unexpected that seems to happen, but it would be prudent now to consider some of the possibilities which the uncertain future may contain. The Secretary of State has shown in recent speeches about European defence and East-West relations that he is aware of all this; and both those speeches were under-reported in the press.

But of the questions for study I would single out as being of great importance the future of the United Nations. A reduction of East-West tension and a greater understanding between the super powers could revolutionise the operation of the UN, could give it a chance to play in a gradually increasing measure the role which its founders envisaged for it, and could permit a re-examination of our whole defence posture and the crippling defence expenditure worldwide.

I can also see a role for the UN in the handling of the international debt problem—not of course in the actual negotiations but in helping to create the right atmosphere to enable the debt problem to be approached by a political path rather than by a purely financial route. In thisconnection I should like to draw the attention of the House and of Ministers to the report of an all-party committee on which three Members of this House served, issued in May just before the election, and entitled Managing Third World Debt. I hope therefore that the Government will give increasing attention to longer-term planning and consideration of the possibilities of international developments, which will make a sharp break from those with which we have become familiar in the past.

I should like to join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on his new appointment and I should like to draw his attention to one problem which has been frequently discussed in this House; that is, the problem of overseas students. In February last the Overseas Student Trust published a booklet entitled Next Step: Overseas Student Policy Into the 1990s. If I recall correctly, the Government gave it a cautious welcome. I should like to draw the new Minister's attention to it and express the hope that he will help in seeing that its recommendations are adopted. If he has anything to say on the subject now, I am sure that the House will be interested to hear it.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on his recent transmission to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Whether he finds it less of a burden than Scottish rates remains to be seen. I am sure however that he has all the virility and imagination to tackle problems from Scandinavia to the South Pacific all of which seem to raise themselves in this House.

I should also like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Young for her very distinguished term of service in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In this House she was a model of patience and dignity, and I know from first-hand experience, through a business visit to Finland, how much help she gave there.

I do not intend to deal with defence; I am almost the first speaker not to do so. The reason is not that I do not support the Government's defence policy. I support it to the hilt. I feel however, that foreign affairs need a great deal of attention. I intend to devote most of my remarks to the Commonwealth. I have family links with New Zealand, and last November I had the privilege of visiting Australia with a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation.

One very significant point has to he made. There are those who write off the Commonwealth. There is the curious notion going around in some quarters that the Australians are anti-British. Such people ought to visit the war cemetery in Canberra —I was there last November—to see how many Australians from all parts of that enormous continent gave their lives for freedom. It is the same in New Zealand which I visited in 1971. In the war cemetery at Parnell, near Auckland, there are a very large number of names in evidence, particularly of those who died in Crete. I believe that even in 1987, when much of the Commonwealth has gone independent, there is still an enormous contribution which this country has to make.

In the gracious Speech, reference is made to the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Australia next year for the bicentenary. One hopes that she will open the new Parliament building in Canberra which some of my honourable friends from the other place and I visited last November during its construction. It is, of course, still under construction. But it will be a most impressive building. Those living outside Canberra—people in Brisbane, in Hobart and in other parts of Australia—may, query the cost of that building, just as in Cardiff and Edinburgh, questions are sometimes asked about the cost of our own premises in Whitehall. This is a natural correlation. I believe nevertheless that Australia deserves its new Parliament. In about two weeks' time there will be a general election in that country. It would be quite improper for me to make any comment on that. That is a matter for Australia, but the result will have considerable consequences in this country.

There is the ANZAC pact and the question of the sea lanes in the Pacific which are of great significance not only to Australia and New Zealand but to this country as well. I hope that we shall continue to give whatever support we can, and indeed increasing support, to that part of the world.

I should like now to turn to Fiji. Fiji is a long way from here. It has a population of only just over one million. I had the honour of visiting Fiji in 1971. As your Lordships know, there was a recent coup on the island which one hopes has now been resolved. The affairs of Fiji have no small significance in this country; its sugar plantations in particular are of much importance to us. I do not know the amount of sugar that we import from Fiji, but it is quite considerable. Those of your Lordships who know the Fijians—some probably better than I—will confirm what charming and loyal people they are. Whatever the outcome of the coup and whatever the outcome regarding the Indian population and the native Fijians, Fiji remains a very important member of the independent Commonwealth.

I have the pleasure of being the chairman of the Anglo-South Pacific group of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There are some most exotic and fascinating sounding countries in that group—Kiribati, Vanuatu and Tuvalu to name three of them. Those countries are little known over here but they still have, in their own small way, an important part to play in Commonwealth and international affairs.

New Zealand, too, faces an election later this year. It is necessary that we continue our trading relations with New Zealand. The amount of farming relations we have with New Zealand, particularly as regards its lamb, is of great importance to its economy and to the very close relations we have with that country.

More people are visiting Australia and New Zealand. Families are moving out there as are increasing numbers of our nurses, doctors and members of other professions. They go not only because salaries in some cases may be greater, but for work experience. The exchange of young people between Australia and New Zealand and the United Kingdom is of vital importance not only to the Commonwealth but to relations between ourselves and those countries as a whole. One hopes that this exchange will continue.

There is one niggle here that is not entirely germane to the debate. Those who fly to Australia know that it is necessary to have a visa. I have never quite known why that is so. I understand that Australians who come over here do not need a visa. It is perhaps a question which my noble friend the Minister could look into. True, it is a Home Office matter in the main, but is is nevertheless of some importance.

I have raised a rather different topic. I believe that the bi-centenary celebrations in Australia, will be a vital landmark for this country and, I hope, a new landmark in relationships between the Commonwealth, old and new, and ourselves.

5.25 p.m.

Lord Ardwick

My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me I am sure if I do not follow him on his interesting excursion to the Antipodes and to the South Pacific. I intend to stay in Europe.

A few days ago I attended a seminar on the problems of the European budget. The seminar was largely composed of people like myself, that is, true believers in the old European faith, latter day disciples of Jean Monnet and other founding fathers of the Community. However, as they contemplated the problems facing the Conmmunity, the conflicts among member states and the remedies proposed by the Commission, they were as sceptical and as disillusioned as my noble friend Lord Bruce himself probably is.

The basic trouble—though not the only one—is the common agricultural policy which sows seeds of the costly cornucopia with its bursting granaries, and its warehouses stuffed with unsaleable and degenerating fat. The current cost of the cornucopia is greatly increased by the slide in the value of the dollar (in which grain prices are reckoned), and the capacity to pay for the abundance is diminished as tariff barriers, on which some of the Community's income is based, are lowered.

I would have been more surprised by the gloom of the ardent Europeanists had I not been a member of our own Sub-Committee A which is inquiring in arcane depth into what the Commission itself has called the budget crisis.

Of course, it may be asked: what have wheat and milk to do with foreign policy and defence, which is the subject of today's debate? Would not those matters fit more aptly into our economic discussions? The answer is that the Foreign Secretary is the Minister chiefly responsible for our relations with the Community, and he and his European colleagues are ultimately responsible for the finances after the budget council and the agricultural council have apparently resolved their differences.

The important word in that sentence is "apparently". What many people fear is that even a further reformed CAP will require still more money and that that money will be found. What we must remember is that it was the need to found a developing political community on a solid economic basis which was the inspiration of it all, and the budgetary crisis occurs at a time when the actions of the super powers expose the Community to new political and defence problems. Those are disturbing problems and they emphasise its need for political cohesion.

Today, as the Heads of State and Government gather for their regular summit, they face two problems. The first, which they may skip over if the newspapers are right, is a deficiency on the current budget of about 3 billion ecus. The second much greater problem is what kind of a Community we intend to have and how we are going to finance it.

The welcome incorporation of Spain and Portugal complicates the problem. There is a desire on the part of Germany, which is a very heavy contributor, and of Britain, which is another heavy contributor, to reduce the overall cost of the Community, or at least to curb it. There is a desire to reform and really control the CAP, though Germany is split-minded on the subject, burdened as it is with so many sub-economic farmers, every one of whom has a vote. There is also the excellent objective of the removal of all internal trade barriers. However, that removal of trade barriers would expose the poor countries—Spain, Portugal and Ireland—to strains which might only be remediable by substantial development of the regional and the social funds, which would cost a lot of money.

Mrs. Thatcher, the most experienced of summiteers, has proved herself to be a doughty fighter in Britain's interests. However, one hopes that, relaxed, with four years before her, she will take a broader view of the Community and its purposes and that at the right moment she will also be willing to remove her veto from the proposal for European research.

The Commission's current objectives have a good deal of merit. The Commission wants a new structure and what is known as "own resources" to give greater budgetary stability and to take more account of the relative prosperity of the member states. It wants better budget discipline, management and a new compensatory mechanism for budgetary analysis. It believes that the CAP expenditure should increase no faster than the Community GNP.

One of the speakers at the seminar which I mentioned suggested that there were three possibilities open to the Community. One was to find a solution. The second was to go bust. The third was to follow its usual sticking-plaster act of sticking the Community together on a temporary basis. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, whether the Government think that all we can do is to put unrelenting pressure on the system and firmly regulate farm prices and quotas. That is the old sticking-plaster remedy. The only hope which one can have for it is that the gum on the plaster is of a better quality.

There is a new situation in Europe which is largely due to the astonishing Mr. Gorbachev. The General Secretary has started out upon the most far-reaching changes attempted in the 70 years which have passed in his country since the revolution. I found on a recent trip across the Atlantic that some people find it difficult to believe in and are uneasy when confronted with a Russia which is Jekyll and Hyde. Even the noble Lord who opened the debate this afternoon was, I felt, somewhat uneasy. His was the rather standard sort of Ministry of Defence speech. There was no element of joy in him at the improvement in the situation.

As a matter of fact, I have found this debate a little thinner than I had hoped. I had hoped that several of the heavyweights on the other side of the Chamber would give us the benefit of their wisdom and that some of the bemedalled warriors who speak so freely and expertly in such debates would be heard this afternoon. However, we have had none of them. We have not even heard the apocalyptic eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who was present earlier. I had hoped that we would hear from him.

I found that a number of people in the United States felt more certain of themselves, their ideas and their stance when they could regard the Soviet Union as an evil empire which could not be trusted to keep any agreement. They see glasnost as a cosmetic operation or a global publicity stunt. The best Kremlinologists are less sceptical. At least the riddle has been unwrapped, even though the enigma below remains intact. Mr. Gorbachev, after all, is not making very great claims. He is not going to bring the Tsars back, to embrace Christianity or to install a regime of liberal capitalism.

Yet it seems obvious that something very important is in train in the Soviet Union. It is something which the Germans call a Wende, or a reversal of trends. We ourselves had one about 10 years ago. We thought at that time that the social democratic consensus, created during the years of full employment and economic growth, would last forever and a day. We then found that they were being penetrated by a conservatism which we had thought dead and gone for ever. We have now had seven years of conservative influence and yet the welfare state survives, though somewhat curbed. It is a conservative reform, though it is not yet and I hope never will be a conservative revolution.

What seems to be happening in the Soviet Union is an effort to use market forces and the price mechanism while retaining central or strategic economic planning. It is a high-risk policy for Mr. Gorbachev and his supporters. They have to overcome the resistance of incompetent bureaucrats and managers and the effects of years of corruption. Whether they can do that remains to be seen. Mr. Gorbachev is facing serious economic and social problems and defence is taking too large a share of his resources. In order to cut defence costs, he needs a new relationship with the Western world. So it seems that for the first time in 40 years a major change in the relationship of East and West is at least a possibility. As a practical beginning there is the zero option of medium-range missiles and a proposed reduction of strategic offensive weapons.

If we get to that stage, it would seem that a policy to contain the arms race is not impossible and that we might live with less tension on a policy not of defence and disarmament, as the noble Lord suggested, but one of deterrence and disarmament. The advent of cruise missiles has stimulated a formidable peace movement on the Continent. I believe that unless we take the opportunity we shall stimulate a bigger and more passionate movement which could be dangerously anti-NATO, and which could alter the defence policies of parties and hamper the policies of governments. That might have serious results in Central Europe. These are people to whom sophisticated arguments about decoupling make no sense. They are people who do not know what flexible response is and who are not to be frightened by the removal of a rung of the nuclear ladder.

The weakening of the doctrine of flexible response, which had some limited credibility as a deterrent, leaves us in Europe with a gap that must be filled. The political side of the Community surely has a role of increasing importance to play in this situation and the European members of NATO must think long and hard together about defence. The ideas for a new relationship between the German and French conventional forces and the proposal to bring France a little closer to NATO by widening the discussions of the NATO Council, of which France is a member, are perhaps an augury. Things are on the move. There is hope. I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, will show that he too possesses a little hope.

5.37 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I should like to speak of Europe, as he did, and also to cover some of the ground which he has covered. I think it is appropriate to do so today, since, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the European summit is meeting in Brussels at the same time as we are debating these matters. That meeting is in fact the culmination of the Belgian Presidency. They are meeting soon after the Irish referendum has cleared away the last obstacle to the implementation of the Single European Act. That Act, among many other things, has formalised foreign policy co-operation within the Community. What is more, it has extended that co-operation and those discussions to include security.

I join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on his appointment. However, I do not suppose that he will as yet be in a position to say how far the discussion on security will go. I imagine that it will go considerably further than discussions on security against terrorism, important though that matter is. I imagine that the disarmament negotiations and their effect on Europe would be covered by such discussions. I should like to ask how those discussions will relate to discussions held on defence within the scope of the WEU? Will the noble Lord agree that we shall not be able forever to keep separate the European defence community on the one hand, and the European Economic Community on the other?

The Single European Act also reiterates the intention of the Community to complete the internal market by 1992. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, the commissioner responsible, has listed some 300 decisions which have to be taken if that is to be achieved. I should like to ask the Government how far behind is the Community at the moment in coping with that programme? The majority voting in certain spheres made possible by the Single European Act will undoubtedly help; but I should like to be assured that the Government feel that the target date of 1992 is still a possibility. On these Benches we fully appreciate the importance of the completion of this market of 320 million people, and we appreciate also the importance of financial services to this country in that context.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, pointed out, it is true that the completion of the market will emphasise the regional disparities within the Community and therefore we must have some counterbalancing force to offset any polarisation which the completion of the market may create. I should like to ask whether the phrase in the gracious Speech which says: They will press for strict controls on Community spending is altogether compatible with the achievement of that balance between the completion of the market and the removal of the disparities which that will emphasise within the Community.

The market is important but it is not enough. Also there has to be a positive role for the Community in the development of the regional fund, in the development of the social fund, and in confronting unemployment together. In that connection, it is not possible to ignore altogether the warning in the bi-annual report of OECD of a possible new economic recession in Europe, which may indeed undermine such recovery as we have been able to achieve in this country.

Again, there is a positive role for the Community in promoting research. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, referred to the fact, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in an earlier intervention, that the British Government are the only government who are at the moment holding up the acceptance of the £4.8 billion package of scientific research and development which is before the Community. I gathered from the answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, at Question Time, that the Government have not yet made up their mind on that matter. I hope that they will withdraw their opposition—an opposition which has been criticised by other member states in the Community and also, as I understand, by Conservative Members of the European Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, reminded us very forcefully of the economic crisis within the Community at the present time—the fact that expenditure has already exceeded own resources. When the VAT rate was increased to 1.4 per cent. it was clear that a further increase would be necessary before long. I hope that the United Kingdom will not block such an increase because the United Kingdom rebate would, as I understand it, then require renegotiation. The Government's argument—again as I understand it—is that control of the common agricultural policy must be achieved first before there is any further expenditure, but cuts in that budget must be shown before any other increased expenditure, other than agriculture expenditure, can be entered upon. But, is it wise to hold up other necessary development until satisfactory reductions in CAP have been achieved?

Derek Prag, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, writing in the May/June issue of The European set out what he believed to be the achievements of the Conservatives in Europe; but he nevertheless added this note of criticism: What is criticised above all is the blocking of further expenditure in desirable policy areas until the CAP has been reformed. Since, as everyone knows, the reform of the CAP without major social upheaval would have to be spread out over a minimum of three years—and probably nearer five—this looks suspiciously like holding up the development of the Community. The aim of reforming farm policy is impeccable—the method, perhaps, in this case too harsh". Derek Prag suggests that this policy, to which the Government adhere, of blocking further expenditure until there are cuts in farm spending, looks to many EC countries like holding up the development of the Community, yet the paragraph in the gracious Speech speaks of the United Kingdom as playing the leading role in the development of the European Community.

Of course, the Commission have put forward proposals to cope with the crisis—proposals designed to raise budget revenue, to curb farm spending and to increase spending in certain areas to reduce the gap between rich and poor. It seems to me to be the right package and that these three things should in fact go together.

Quintin Peel, the European Community correspondent of the Financial Times in Brussels, when writing in the spring issue of European Affairs said: Mr. Delors (the President of the Commission) got warm words in Rome, the Benelux countries and in Dublin, Athens and Lisbon. But in Bonn, London and Paris he got the contrary reaction of doubt and suspicion". I do not blame the United Kingdom Government alone. As a member of the British German Parliamentary Group, and a warm friend of West Germany, I am bound to admit that the government in Bonn, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, pointed out, has been digging in its heels against both curbs on farm spending and increased expenditure in other areas.

I realise that although the expenditure on the common agricultural policy has increased, net farm incomes—farm incomes in real terms—have declined creating a serious policy problem for governments, particularly so far as concerns poorer farmers. As Derek Prag said in the article from which I quoted, the cuts in CAP will take time to implement.

The Community budget, which some governments are so loath to increase, is really peanuts—if I may use that phrase. In 1974 it took 0.5 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the Community. By 1985 that figure had increased only to 0.09 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the Community—in other words, less than 1 per cent. It is a good many years since the McDougall Committee recommended a level of 2½ per cent. The total that the Community spends—about £20 billion—compares with £140–£150 billion that the British Government alone spend. It is half what we spend in this country in a year on social security. According to the figure given earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, it is about the same as we spend on defence in this country alone. That is the cost of the Community to the 12 member nations.

The failure of the Council of Ministers to solve the financial crisis has been condemned by the European Parliament, but I cannot help thinking that if the Commission and Parliament had their way the problems would certainly be tackled. The real problem is not so much the common agricultural policy as national sovereignty.

In support of that, in conclusion I quote a further extract from the article to which I referred earlier by the Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Derek Prag. He says that it is all too easy to blame 'the Community' for the financial mess, as the media do. But the fact is that it is the Council of Ministers—that is, the 12 governments themselves—which is responsible both for the Community's policy decisions on agriculture and for providing the funds to finance them. If the CAP has got the Community's finances into a fearful mess, the blame must fall fairly and squarely on their shoulders. I am sure that he is right.

5.51 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on his reappointment and in particular by giving the warmest of welcomes to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on his promotion to his senior position in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to wish him the very best of luck in that post.

I should like to say something about the present crisis in Western leaderhip. There is, it seems to me, a vacuum in Western leadership which, because the Soviet Union has the strongest leadership in some 40 years, has reached the dimensions of a crisis. This is not just a crisis of personalities. Underneath the isolation and the demoralisation of the current American Presidency, American power is waning. With her current economic policies America is consuming her capital. She is mortgaging tomorrow in order to consume imported goods today. So financial and economic power has leaked away from America, in particular to Germany and Japan.

These are the industrialised countries which, since the war, had the motivation to rebuild their economic positions in the world undistracted by thoughts of international political responsibilities. They had no wish to raise old ghosts by concerning themselves with international political affairs. They were certainly also discouraged from doing so. Indeed, many restrictions were deliberately placed on them. So today they have still not assumed a share in the responsibility for the political health and survival of the West commensurate with their economic and financial power.

I think that Her Majesty's Government should now take the initiative in Europe both to attack the problems which are threatening the disintegration of the Community—problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick has just referred—and also to establish a European defence policy. The weakening of America has brought closer the day when Europe is required to take up a greater, perhaps a substantially greater, share in its own defence. Against that possibility Europe should prepare itself.

It has also made it more than ever imperative for a coherent European policy on arms control to be hammered out. With France speaking now with two voices, with Germany politically inhibited and boxed in on the question of the common agriculture policy this country, with the Prime Minister's unrivalled prestige and a much strengthened economy, is presented with a unique and not to be repeated challenge. I think that the means should probably be the establishment of a strong informal Anglo-French-German partnership.

I have on more than one occasion in this House argued against the zero-zero option. Since then it has moved closer to becoming not an option but a fact. However, it is not yet by any means a fact so I must repeat some of my objections today. It seems to me that it constitutes a major step down the path to the denuclearisation of Europe which will only whet the appetite of those who desire to complete the process and demoralise those who drew heavily on their political capital to get cruise and Pershing installed in the first place.

It seems to me also a step towards the disengagement of the United States from a commitment to the defence of Europe. Whatever other motivation President Reagan may have for producing an arms control agreement with Gorbachev, any INF agreement risks being perceived in the USA—later if not now—as a measure which weakened NATO European defence and for which Europe's apparent passion for disarmament at any price was primarily responsible. As such it ranks with Europe's continuing refusal to accept the peacetime deployment on European soil of United States modernised chemical weapons.

It is not as if the zero-zero option was being put into effect while a corresponding and offsetting effort was made to increase conventional forces. There are no proposals to that end in the Queen's Speech. Nor is it plausible to suppose that such measures will follow, given the declining economic growth trends in Western Europe, given defence budgets which are projected to fall in real terms, given the ever-growing unreadiness of Western publics to accept sacrifice and given demographic trends which are sharply reducing the pool of the age group from which armies are raised.

We seem to be trying to persuade ourselves that because President Reagan originally made the proposal in 1981 we have somehow, by our steadfastness, prevailed on General Secretary Gorbachev to accept our demands. That does not reflect the facts as I interpret them. The original proposal was a tactic designed to placate European anti-nuclear opinion and was bound to be refused by the Soviets simply because it was not necessarily going to be successful—as indeed it very nearly was not. Once, however, cruise and Pershing were installed the Soviet interest was quite different. It is the West which now has to act as if all the agony it went through was of no account. It is the West, rather than the Soviet Union, which would find it so difficult ever to reinstall comparable weapons if circumstances were to change. The zero-zero option, I fear, is a reward for astute Soviet diplomacy and was made possible by a lack of courage, constancy and clear thinking by European leaders as a whole in confronting currents of anti-nuclear opinion.

So there are two strands running towards United States dis-engagement from European defence—the economic weakening of America and American perception of European appeasement of anti-nuclear sentiment. Europe should prepare for the consequences of American weakness and it should so order and co-ordinate its policies as to avoid giving rise to American suspicions that Europe is less interested in the defence of Europe than is America.

The defence of the West is now an urgent task. The West, which has reached an apogee of material plenty, lies spread out before the Communist East like a feast before the eyes of the starving, their faces pressed up against the window panes. In such circumstances, you do not send the watchguards off duty.

Currently General Secretary Gorbachev, faced by a declining growth rate in his own economy, is trying to restore Russia's capacity to compete with the West. If that attempt fails, what chance then that the Soviet leadership might not turn its aggression outward; and if it cannot raise the level of the Soviet economy, then seek to damage or destroy the rival economy of the West in order to remove this disturbing vision of how things can be ordered better from in front of the eyes of its own restless population.

It is in Europe where leadership has to be re-established. At present there is a vacuum. The issues at stake are vast. They are the most important for perhaps much more than a generation. The time is ticking past. There is only one country which has hitherto unused international leadership potential. In the interests of this country, of Europe and of the whole of the free world may that opportunity be grasped now.

6 p.m.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I should like to make one immediate response to the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. We must also never forget the magnificent, tremendous contribution the people of the Soviet Union made when they assisted us in our endeavours to overcome the Nazi menace which threatened all mankind.

I should like to express my appreciation, as so many others have, of the remarkable job that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did at the Foreign Office. She is entitled to the grateful thanks of all of us. I wish also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and to make it clear to him that, among many others, I shall be doing my best to keep him on his toes and make him earn his money.

The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said a great deal about freedom and security for NATO countries, as if freedom and security for any other part of the world did not matter. That is a dangerous idea to be enamoured of. It is dangerous because it ignores the agony of the Palestinians, who have lost their homeland, of Afghanistan, which has suffered appallingly at the hands of one great power and of Grenada and Nicaragua, which have suffered tremendously from the other great power. Neither Russia nor the United States are blameless or pure. Many millions of people, from Vietnam to Palestine, have been the victims of the appaling behaviour of the United States or the Soviet Union.

The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, seemed almost besotted with admiration for thermo-nuclear weapons, which, if not controlled, will destroy the United Kingdom and the earth. His apparent rapture over thermo-nuclear bombs entitles him to be called a twentieth century Nero. He spoke about Mr. Kinnock and his foreign policy and how that policy was rejected. I would point out to your Lordships' House that Mr. Kinnock had a majority of 22,947 in his constituency in Wales, while the Conservative Secretary of State for Defence had a majority of 182 in Scotland. Members opposite should not give us so much nonsense. All that they and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, have said points dramatically to the most dangerous threat this nation has suffered since the end of the Second World War. Mr. Kinnock's majority and that of the Secretary of State for Defence show that we are a massively divided nation. That is the most appalling result of eight years of Toryism.

Foreign policy and defence are of course inextricably linked. That has been reflected in today's speeches. There is some truth in the idea that NATO (created by Labour) much more than the bomb has proved to be a necessary shield. However, the development of nuclear weapons has now become the greatest threat facing mankind, and not merely in Europe. Nuclear bombs have kept the peace in Europe, but not elsewhere, for 40 years.

Why does the House not realise that a Vietnamese mother feels grief when she sees her children napalmed to death? Why do we not realise that Nicaraguan mothers, fathers and children can feel agony and have pain in their souls when their families are cut to ribbons and slaughtered by those who are financed by the United States of America? Those matters must be taken seriously into consideration. While it was the terror of Stalinism which forged British bipartisan foreign policy, terror, by whoever creates it, will forge a unity among those who are not necessarily of our way of thinking or who do not think that there is much to be gained by joining with the West.

There has not been much negotiation during the past eight years. We have relied on building bigger and better nuclear weapons. We have now reached the stage when we can all feel, with great Christian pride, that we are able to wipe out every European and American 40 times over. That is a rather sobering thought.

I happen to believe that neglect of conventional forces and weapons is a suicidal policy. What could happen, and I hope never will, is that Russia would invade through East Germany and possibly reach the Rhine. NATO nuclear weapons, including American nuclear weapons based here, would be brought into action. They would wipe out millions of invading Russian soldiers. They would also wipe out a few million Germans. No nuclear weapon yet designed can drop on Europe and kill only wicked Russians. When will the Government realise that?

If we wiped out the Russian army and millions of civilians, there would be only one response. Where did those nuclear weapons that wiped out the Russian army come from? The answer would be the United Kingdom. What would the Russians do? They would wipe out the source of the weapons. At that stage the Americans would say to the Russians, "For heaven's sake, let us stop this appalling, bloodthirsty behaviour. Let us sit down and talk things over." We would not be included; nor would half of Europe. We would have been wiped out. We must therefore ensure that that this does not become the reality, as it could unless we are careful.

Governments have claimed that they were always prepared to negotiate, but that Stalin was the main obstacle. And yet Mr. Gorbachev has put forward proposals similar to those made by this and previous British Governments. The Government have been somewhat dilatory or perhaps even embarrassed in their response. At one stage just before the election I felt sure that the Government had had the secret thought, "Come back Stalin. All is forgiven. Gorbachev has so embarrassed us by his proposals in which we, at one time, believed." We must face up to that.

I agree that we should never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate! Of late, the Government seem to have found a difficulty for every proposed solution. That seems to be akin to the ideas of some political generals in NATO. The Government are not keen to forge new policies. They are still affected by the old Tory philosophy that they never look at the new moon out of respect for the old.

There are serious problems in the world. Millions are suffering from poverty, starvation and disease. We see dreadful pictures on television. The British press tells us of the thousands, nay millions, of men, women and children who are starving to death. If they could, they would perhaps welcome a nuclear explosion to end things once and for all and get rid of their suffering.

That is a terrible thought to enter anyone's mind. The multi-millions of pounds, about which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, spoke, could be used in a more civilised way to help those who are suffering so appallingly. Alas, our help is hindered by the cost of modern nuclear weapons. The agony of the starving millions is appalling. It would be a good thing if all politicians and all Britons—everyone in this remarkable little island— acknowledged the fact that our capacity for emotional concern for individual life is the most significant quality in a civilised human being.

We must endeavour to seek agreement with the USSR. Our Prime Minister, almost a bigger Reaganite than President Reagan, built her iron reputation in the early 1980s proclaiming her contempt for, and distrust of, the Soviet Union. Some little proposalse were hinted at but not taken up while Stalin was alive. Then along came Mr. Gorbachev. We believe that he is giving us at least an opportunity. I believe that it is the responsibility and indeed the duty of our Government to investigate very thoroughly and to assist in creating this new atmosphere.

During these 40 years of European peace, the USA, the UK and France have accumulated an arsenal of nuclear missiles of enormous, almost inconceivable, capability of indiscriminate destruction. The insanity is spreading among other nations. The USSR has possibly a larger stock to obliterate large parts of the world than NATO. Yet it is the USSR that is now prepared to seek alternatives to a nuclear strategy. The West German Chancellor has said that he wants global elimination of all short-range missiles as well as tactical battlefield systems because of the special threat that they pose to his country. I submit that with this sort of thinking in the mind of a German Chancellor, it is perhaps something we ought to take very seriously and we should wonder whether it will not cause a crack in NATO and NATO defence.

On 15th May the British Foreign Office announced that Britain was prepared to accept a zero zero agreement between the US and the USSR on shorter range missiles, provided the conditions adequately safeguarded Britain's security. That is not unreasonable at all. But we must always bear in mind that it is the inter-continental missile that can wipe out all humanity. So, although the first move might well be very welcome, we must move on from there, and at some speed, because it seems that we are now all campaigning for nuclear disarmament. The Prime Minister would like to see nuclear disarmament; President Reagan would like to see nuclear disarmament; Mr. Gorbachev wants to see it, and, one way and another, we are all for CND. But we are looking at the problem from different aspects of approach. We may be able to change the mind of the man who said, "If I owned Europe and hell, I'd rent out Europe and live in hell." When he said that just 18 months ago, there was a remarkable ring of truth about it.

An acceptable foreign policy must have reasonably broad support. It cannot prosper in a divided nation. And our nation is horribly divided. Just look at the response of the constituents of Mr. Kinnock and the response of the constituents of the Secretary of State for Defence! There is the massive great divide which is so dangerous. It is absurd, I believe, to spend millions, as we shall do, on nuclear weapons and endanger our National Health Service. In-house spending at the Ministry of Defence on research establishments is about £600 million annually at the moment. We have all this money on the one hand. Yet ordinary people are much more worried about the poll tax which the Government will impose instead of rates.

If the Government say that this is the cost to enable little countries to have nuclear missiles in order to stand up to big ones, do they agree—and I want an answer to this question—that Nicaragua should have nuclear weapons? Why are we so special that we should have nuclear weapons? Cannot Nicaragua, Zambia or all oppressed nations like Afghanistan have them? Why not? If it is good for our defence, it should be good for theirs. Some people would argue that it might also be wonderful if the black forces in southern Africa could have some sort of nuclear weapon with which to threaten the appalling proponents of apartheid. All this might seem an impossibility now. But the probability was that in 1918 nobody dreamt of the possible use of nuclear weapons at the conclusion of the 1939–45 war.

The Government's White Paper on defence published on 6th May seems to suffer from delusions of adequacy and cannot remain an absolutely logical policy. If the USA and the USSR can agree, then, whatever the agreement or activity embarked upon between them, the fundamental built-in acceptable condition is verification. I am all in favour of what Mr. Gorbachev has said. I hope that we shall talk to him and try to make this a reality. But at all times we must make verification a central pole of our policy.

The new United States and USSR approach simply means that we must not ignore the most significant international development of decades. That is the fact that the President of the United States and Mr. Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, want to get together. They have been together. They want to get together again. They really believe that perhaps, slowly but surely, some emergence of civilised behaviour might result from their discussions.

In conclusion, I am one of those who believe we should never send any British Minister naked into the conference chamber. But we should certainly see that he goes. For a British Minister goes with all the respect, all the history, that this nation still commands and which is still very much appreciated throughout the world.

6.17 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, I do not intend to make a lengthy contribution to this debate. As in previous years, I shall deal first with the area where I have spent the greater part of my life, the Middle East. I am glad that the problems of the Middle East are once more mentioned in the gracious Speech, but since I initiated a debate on that subject on 8th April in this House I do not intend to repeat now what I said on that occasion.

The main point I made in that debate, which was accepted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her former role, was that the Israeli regime was exercising a stranglehold on the Arab populations of the occupied areas, particularly the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I know many noble Lords tend to favour the Israeli side, but whatever they may say or think one cannot escape the conclusion that these occupied territories are slowly but inexorably being incorporated into the state of Israel. However, I shall say no more about that since the subject was covered extensively in the debate on 8th April.

As I see it—and I think all noble Lords would agree—our main aim must surely be to give all possible support to the declaration of the Twelve signed in Brussels on 23rd February this year, favouring an international peace conference. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. It is perhaps encouraging that although the Israeli Government are opposed to such a conference because they are clearly against any form of PLO intervention, which we accept, nevertheless the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, on his recent visit to London favoured this idea. I should also add that the Americans are opposed to the proposal for the conference, for the same reasons as the Israelis. In other words, they object to PLO participation.

Perhaps the most significant and certainly the most unfortunate recent development in Lebanon has been the murder of the former Prime Minister, Rashid Karameh, who was one of the most balanced and stable political figures in that highly unstable and unbalanced land. He was widely acceptable to the West and he was on very good terms with the Syrians. He will be much missed.

I was particularly pleased to read in the gracious Speech a reference to human rights violations. As far as I can remember, these have not been in any recent gracious Speeches. I have raised this matter several times in the past few years in your Lordships' House, most recently in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on 11th February. If one studies the recent report of Amnesty International, dated June this year, one must be aware that the most appalling violations of human rights, particularly tortures, are continuing in a great many countries. In Iran, in particular they are probably on a scale unequalled elsewhere in the world. That is quite apart from the recruitment of boy soldiers, which I have also mentioned. It is probably true to say that about 100,000 of them, so one is told, have been killed in the past few years, some as young as 12.

As I said before, the most appalling tortures are continuing in many countries. I shall not go into details. I have mentioned them on two or three occasions. These include such devilish devices as the drawing rack, burying alive, and suspension from a meat hook. Then, of course, not only in Iran but in many other countries, in particular Latin America, imprisonment without trial, and frequently executions without trial, are commonplace. In fact, one can say without fear of contradiction that worldwide the overall human rights situation has not improved noticeably since I asked my Unstarred Question on this matter in January 1983. Indeed, according to the latest reports from Amnesty International some 80 per cent. of the world's countries, including even our own, are now violating human rights. I therefore sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will put real meaning into their undertaking in the gracious Speech. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance on this point.

The third area to which I wish to refer is Uganda. I served there for some years. We in this country are still groping for precise information about what is going on. There is no doubt that Museveni is proving a better ruler than Amin, but according to Ugandan friends I have met the northern and eastern parts of the country are still very unsettled though the southern and western are effectively under Museveni's control. It is unfortunate that the latest Amnesty International report, to which I have already referred, although mentioning an overall improvement in the human rights situation does not mention these northern and eastern areas. One wonders whether it might be possible for a parliamentary delegation to visit some of these and other areas so that we can have some kind of overall picture.

I understand that our aid programme for Uganda is now running at £10 million a year. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm this. However, I have also heard from reliable Ugandan sources that the Ugandan Government are spending £20 million annually on arms, against our £10 million for development. I should be most grateful for any comments which the Minister can make.

Another rather sinister element in the situation which has been reported in the press is that Museveni has been using chemical bombs supplied by Libya to attack opposing elements in the north, and the Libyan involvement in Uganda at present is clearly quite extensive although I have no precise figures to quote. I hope that the Minister may be able to enlighten us on the present situation in this unhappy country which is after all still a member of our own cosy Commonwealth club.

6.25 p.m.

The Earl of Bessborough

My Lords, first, we on this side of the House must respectfully congratulate Her Majesty on her most gracious Speech and the Government on a most constructive and enterprising programme. I also warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on his promotion as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Strathclyde on their witty speeches on Thursday.

I read with great interest the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel just before Easter on UK relations with the United States and the Soviet Union. I should have spoken then had I not been unavoidably prevented because I was about to take off for an eight-day visit to Washington. However, perhaps this is a good opportunity to say what I might have said then. That debate came at a most appropriate time when we knew that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would be taking off shortly for Moscow and that the Leader of the Opposition was already in Washington on a somewhat ill-advised and inauspicious visit.

While I was in Washington I was well briefed on certain aspects of our special relationship with the United States. In the 'thirties I used to visit Canada and the United States at least twice a year, and since 1950 at least once a year. In the 'sixties I used to go to the Soviet Union. I went there a number of times on parliamentary, commercial and communications business and was one of those responsible for setting up the London-Moscow television link. I also visited research institutes in various parts of Russia, including the closed Science City, the Akademgorodok, south of Novosibirsk, as well as other establishments in Eastern Siberia.

In those years I also lectured on science and technology in Britain more or less all round the world. Quite recently I spent most of a week in Brussels with my noble friend Lord Carrington and his colleagues at NATO, as well as with General Bernie Rogers and his staff at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. I greatly regret, as did my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, that the general should now be retiring from SHAPE where he has been a most successful and popular allied commander.

While in Brussels at NATO and SHAPE our parliamentary and scientific delegation, led by my honourable friend, Sir Trevor Skeet, had the opportunity of discussing Mr. Gorbachev's proposals on removing medium-range nuclear missiles from Europe. Although I felt that we must obviously take these propositions seriously and welcome them as a possible step in the right direction, I was not altogether happy. If the USSR removed its SS.20s, and we our cruise and Pershings, would not the Soviet Union then have considerable superiority over the West? Of course under the zero-zero option it might be agreed to reduce short-range missiles too. But even in that event the Soviet Union would still have superiority in conventional forces and even, as I understand it, in laser beams.

I was glad therefore to hear in the gracious Speech that the Government will strive for balanced and verifiable measures of arms control and that they strongly support United States proposals for the elimination of intermediate-range nuclear missiles and 50 per cent. reductions in American and Soviet strategic nuclear weapons. I am glad too that they will strive for a worldwide ban on chemical weapons and will seek balanced reductions—this is most important—leading to lower levels of conventional forces throughout Europe and the elimination of disparities which threaten Western security. I shall be interested to know whether my noble friend Lord Glenarthur cares to expand on that passage in the gracious Speech in addition to what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said earlier.

I have not been to the Soviet Union so very recently, having become more of a China-watcher. I have been on two industrial and high technology missions to the People's Republic, one quite recently at the time of the Sino-British declaration on Hong Kong. I have to admit that personally I now have more friends in the People's Republic of China than in the USSR. I should not like my Chinese friends to think of me as perhaps two-timing with the Russians. This has made me somewhat reluctant to return to Soviet Russia although I have been invited to do so and I admit that I should very much like to do so because in the 1960s I also made some friends there. I must emphasise that while I am fascinated by Russia—I admire its 19th century literature and drama and also some of its more recent writers, including some dissidents (who I am glad have been released from the notorious Gulag Archipelago)—I cannot forget that as the first president and chairman of the European Atlantic Group I presided in 1956 in the Albert Hall over leaders of all our political parties and the Churches to protest with Hungarian freedom fighters at Soviet armed intervention in Budapest. Nor can I forget 12 years later the Prague Spring, nor 12 years after that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Nor can I forget their occupation of Campuchea, their massive troop formations on Chinese borders, nor their penetration in the Horn of Africa as well as in Angola, Mozambique and islands in the Indian Ocean. I shall say nothing of Nicaragua.

As a former Member of the European Parliament—who, like my noble friend behind me, frequently attended meetings in Rome and elsewhere in Italy—perhaps I may say this. I only hope that the kind of liberal communism which I know exists in that country and now in Hungary (which has recently been described as the home of liberal communism) will spread, if it is not already spreading, into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics itself.

I only hope that Mikhail Gorbachev's proposed reforms—I read a report of his ambitious speech to the Central Committee last week—will generally be accepted especially by the Supreme Soviet this week. I wonder what is going on there now especially in the Supreme Soviet committees where I know very frank unpublicised discussions take place? I was most impressed by the most authoritative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, on the changes which are taking place—a matter which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick.

An article on the front page of last Monday's The Times referred to recent local elections in the Soviet Union. Only 5 per cent. of the seats were contested by more than one candidate. Is this really the beginning of a democracy? Personally I must have my doubts. How glasnost is glasnost? How open is this openness? Shall we ever really know how many hundreds of thousands Stalin murdered or how many are still confined in certain camps? I regret to say that I cannot help agreeing with Paul Johnson that glasnost is more propaganda than reality.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to point out that the new electoral system which the Russians favour is the one favoured by the British Conservative Party?

The Earl of Bessborough

My Lords, I rather expected that there might be someone on the Liberal Benches who would raise the electoral issue, but I do not think that it is quite relevant to what I have been saying.

From recent reports it would seem that the anti-reformists—those who believe that Mr. Gorbachev is betraying Marxist ideology—are gaining ground. Therefore I have to ask this: can a leopard ever completely change its spots' Can black sheep turn white overnight, if ever? One thing is certain: if there is a third world war we may all be lambs to the slaughter—sacrificial lambs if you like.

Despite all that I should like to return to the USSR, for a dialogue must be maintained with them. We must continue to speak frankly to each other as I have certainly done in the past when that was one of my main tasks in our Embassy in Paris as well as on my visits to Russia in the 1960s. I remember when in Paris asking a highly distinguished colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, whether he thought that my routine arguments with an opposite number in the Soviet embassy had much effect. He replied "Yes, it is like water dripping on a stone. Such talk does have a long term effect".

Therefore I was and am certainly one of those who wish my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—who is now the senior statesman in Europe and who has consulted effectively with President Mitterand and Chancellor Kohl—the best of good fortune in what I hope will be her continuing meetings with Mr. Gorbachev who I was glad in December 1984 she said she liked and felt she could do business with. My right honourable friend added wisely that we had great interests in common; that everything should be done to ensure that war never starts again and that we should therefore go into arms control talks determined to succeed. She also said that we should build up confidence in one another, co-operate on trade and cultural matters and increase contacts between politicans on both sides of the divide.

As regards trade, I was glad to read the remarks of my noble friend—my old friend—Lord Jellicoe, Chairman of the East European Trade Council, that British exports to Russia worth millions of pounds channelled through Finland were waiting to be tapped and that this clearly emerged from recent accords between British industrial leaders and Soviet and Finnish officials. Having twice visited Finland as a Minister and representative of the Conservative Party I agree with my noble friend that Britain should take advantage of our Finnish friends' long-standing and close links with Russia.

In so far as the United States is concerned, it was good to read recently in the Economist that of the countries in which our friends in the United States think America has a vital interest, Britain leads, followed by Canada, Japan, West Germany and Saudi Arabia. Britain comes first. This was reassuring in the light of the somewhat disturbing address given by Ambassador Charles Price in his recent speech to the European Atlantic Group in which he warned of the dangers for the Atlantic Alliance of insidious anti-Americanism found within certain elements in the European establishment.

In my view, whatever agreements my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Sir Geoffrey Howe may come to with Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze, these should not in any way jeopardise our special relationship with the United States. I hope that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will confirm this. In so far as concerns arms control and SDI, I hope my right honourable friend will continue to say that we in Britain still support so-called star wars research but not deployment, even if the Soviets may even now be capable of employing laser beams and have their own SDI system.

One covers a good deal of ground in these debates and I have not very much more to say. I thought it was good to hear President Reagan's special adviser on arms control, Mr. Paul Nitze, when he was here earlier this year, emphasise that early deployment was not under consideration and confirm that such deployment would be a matter of negotiation as agreed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David in 1984.

More recently I believe it has been my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who must be given credit for getting arms control negotiations going again after the collapse at Reykjavik. I hope my noble friend will confirm that too. I was distressed to learn, also while in Washington, and to read recently in The Times —and this is quite an important point—that in regard to SDI Britain had won contracts worth only 34 million dollars with original predictions of up to £1.5 billion sterling overall. I hope the United States will allow the aerospace industry in this country and in Europe to improve on this and that in space research and development generally, both civil and military—including the Columbus space station Britain and her European partners may receive their fair share of contracts.

We must play our part in pioneering the space frontier. I have been discussing this matter with other noble Lords who are members of the sub-committee on United Kingdom space policy as well as with certain interested British firms. I shall be interested in any comments my noble friend Lord Glenarthur may have to make on this matter and in whether he thinks contracts with British industry may increase.

In conclusion, I must say this. Everywhere I have gone around the world in the past eight years I have heard nothing but praise for our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary. Whether in the East or the West, the North or the South, whether from members of Right-wing or Left-wing governments, I hear people express the wish that they too had a Margaret Thatcher. How fortunate for this country that she and our friends have indeed been returned to office for a third exciting term.

6.43 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I too should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her work at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office where I am sure she was a moderating influence on the (dare I say?) lunatic Right tendencies within her own party. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on achieving his new position.

In rising to speak in this debate I should like to make a few points on the subject of national defence. However, before I start I should like to say something on the subject of nuclear weapons. We are continually subjected to the statement that nuclear weapons have prevented war in Europe for the past 40 years or thereabouts. This always remind me of the man who bangs his head against a wall. When asked why he does this he replies: Because it stops the elephants falling out of the sky". He is told that elephants do not fall out of the sky. His response is: Yes, I know. It is because I keep banging my head against the wall". I call this the head banger's argument.

More seriously, national defence needs men, munitions and money. Effective defence needs men and women who are fit, healthy and well educated. Munitions are required to enable the men and women to be effective in the front line. Unless we have the manufacturing industry to produce these for ourselves our defence effort will be severely hampered. We cannot expect in time of conflict to be able to go to the international arms market to buy what we need. Even if we could afford the inflated prices, there are all sorts of other reasons, ranging from political to logistical, why procurement from those sources would be difficult.

Money, as cash or credit, is also necessary to oil the wheels of war. However, even more important is the wealth we have at our disposal. I refer not to the wealth of City speculators but to the real wealth of our nation—the people, property and facilities that are available to be harnessed in time of conflict. The people who will back up our armed forces need to be no less fit, no less healthy and no less well educated than their comrades on the front. The property that signifies real wealth is the physical infrastructure of our society—the houses, schools and hospitals, the mines, ports, airports, steel works and chemical works, railways and roads, and the great public utilities such as posts, telephones, gas, water and electricity. All of those need to be supported by a government who believe in national defence.

Facilities are also needed—the equipment and machine tools that go into the factories and enable a skilled workforce to produce the manufactured goods for home consumption and export in times of peace and to build the guns, aircraft and fighting ships in time of war. Unfortunately there has been a history of neglect of these vital aspects of national defence by the two previous Conservative governments.

To meet our defence requirements we need to invest. We need to invest in people. We need to invest in property; not just City financiers buying buildings but real money being used to build houses, schools, hospitals, factories, steel works and so on. Water is a vital resource and the industry needs real public money invested for the national good and not privatisation. Above all, we need to invest in our manufacturing industry. Some of the investment will have to come from the public purse—the launch support to British Aerospace for new aircraft—but we also need a climate in which manufacturing industry can prosper, a lower pound and lower real interest rates.

The Government's proposals in the gracious Speech are broadly irrelevant to the real defence needs of this country. After seeing the effects of Chernobyl, how can anyone believe we can use nuclear weapons without hurting ourselves? Nuclear weapons are a headache, not an asset. There is however one tiny ray of hope in the Government's proposals and that is the promise of, measures … to assist the merchant shipping industry". I only hope that they will come quickly enough and be effective enough, because the rundown of the shipbuilding industry and the Merchant Navy of this country has been a scandal leading to real threats to our ability to defend ourselves.

6.49 p.m.

Lord Kagan

My Lords, wide publicity has been given in the European press, and much less so in the British press, to Chancellor Helmut Kohl's revolutionary proposal to create a joint Franco-German fighting force which could, and he hoped would, become the embryo for the eventual creation of a European army. The idea is not new. Kohl's predecessor Helmut Schmidt when Chancellor proposed an integrated command under French leadership for all German and French forces. Mitterrand supported it; Giscard d'Estaing supported it. Interestingly enough there has been a continuous public opinion poll which recently showed that 60 per cent. of the French population were in favour of that policy.

The French have always understood that Europe cannot shelter indefinitely under the American nuclear umbrella, to quote a French defence correspondent, as if behind the Maginot Line defended by others. Defence and foreign policy in France and Germany have always been national and not allowed to become party political issues. Therein lies some of their strengths. Chirac, when in Moscow, made it quite clear to Mikhail Gorbachev that the French nuclear deterrent is not negotiable. Therefore I think that what we think one way or the other is quite irrelevant—it will not be avoided.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, referred to our place at the European table and whether or not we should be at the top. We must seek to join early or we shall be left behind. In 1951 Churchill pointed the way to the desirability of Britain playing a more important part in the actual European defence system as an unavoidable historical necessity. I am referring to his speech at the Mansion House in July, 1951. If we do not join at an early stage France and Germany will dominate Europe—116 million people; a virile economy powered by German discipline and, let us admit it, by French innovative genuis; an unfettered pursuit of excellence so far as France is concerned; a totally uninhibited incentive-motivated economy so far as Germany is concerned. Those are facts.

The challenge is the Soviet Union under its new leader. We have read the report of the recent plenum of the central committee of the Soviet Union. Yazoff is in place as the new Minister of Defence. He is clearly a Gorbachev appointment, and let us not forget that Yazoff came up through the personnel office of the Soviet Army. In other words, he knows all about people's attitude to perestroika in the army, where to find them and where to place them. Zaikov, another member of the Politburo, is in charge of heavy industry, and is a committed supporter of Gorbachev's new policies.

The performance of Japan and Germany has not been lost on Gorbachev. Just as Stalin converted suddenly and overnight to patriotism when the Soviet Union was in danger, Gorbachev is quite prepared to convert to an incentive economy if the back-up for the Soviet armed forces is in danger. He realises that an innovative industry is a precondition for military power and the challenge to Russia is the West. The threat is mainly China.

What Russia will represent as a challenge history will show. Let us not forget that the massive resources under the new leadership may be very impressive indeed. To what extent Gorbachev has been converted to an incentive economy may be judged by his speech to the plenum: How can an economy progress if it offers hot house protection to laggards whilst hitting out at front runners? That is Gorbachev. I do not think Norman Tebbitt could have done better.

The new economic mechanism, as it is called, will be formidable. Following the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, theory and ideology have never controlled but have always served Soviet power.

6.55 p.m.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, I welcome the paragraph of the Queen's speech which concerns the European Community. It states that the Government will play a leading role in the development of the European Community while safeguarding Britain's essential national interests. I suggest only one slight modification to that sentence and it is a feeling shared by many. It is that we should play a leading role in the development of the European Community because of safeguarding Britain's essential national interests. There is no doubt that, as there is closer co-operation between the Western European nations, both our security in this part of the world and our prosperity in this country depend intimately on our membership of the Community and on making that membership a success.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has spoken eloquently on government policy in relation to defence. The General Election result was well received by all our colleagues on the Continent. They knew that they had a government in the United Kingdom which would honour our international obligations under NATO and provide the necessary support in defence and security which we have carried on as a policy for the past 40 years. Recognising that the Opposition did not have a bipartisan policy in this field, all the more strongly was our election result welcomed. I add that that welcome came not only from equivalent Christian Democrat parties but from people who are patriotic enough, regardless of their economic theories, to recognise the value of defence and how it has kept peace in Western Europe.

One of the points which was particularly relevant in the Queen's Speech was the statement: My Government will strive for balanced and verifiable measures of arms control". Many noble Lords have spoken on that issue but never is it more real than when one is sitting as I was last week, in the Reichstag in Berlin, within 50 yards of the Berlin wall. There is no doubt that the question of a zero-zero option must be of concern to the ordinary people of Berlin and Western Germany when it is known full well that the Russians have a vast store of chemical weapons; that they have powerful nuclear submarines; and, as we all know, that they have vast superiority in conventional weapons. It is an understandable fear. I believe that one of the few elements that will remove the fear will be when at last the Secretary General of the Communist Party, Mr. Gorbachev, states that it is no longer the policy of the Soviet Union to seek world domination for communism. Until that statement is made I think that everyone in Western Europe is entitled to ensure that we have maximum security against any possible form of attack, whether it be subversive or overt.

The noble Lord who spoke before me talked of the possibility of economic change in the Soviet Union. He quite properly quoted the words recently used by the Secretary General at the plenum session. However, as we all know, history has proved that one only has economic progress in a democratic state. When the noble Lord said that the words could have been quoted by Norman Tebbit, let us remember that Norman Tebbit is the chairman of a party in a free country, with a free democratic constitution. Mr. Gorbachev will not have that privilege or possibility to improve his economic resources, I imagine, for very many years to come, if we look back at the history of the Soviet Union and the agricultural economic and social conditions in which the Russians live. It is no fault of theirs: but that is history and you have to recognise that situation. So until there is a change in the declared political objectives of Mr. Gorbachev, I think everybody who has spoken today in your Lordships' House expressing anxiety as to the removal of nuclear missiles in Western Europe has right on his side.

I should now like to say just a few words about the economic prosperity from which the prosperity in this country springs, which is of course based on our membership of the European Community. Fifty per cent. of our export trade is with the other countries of the Community and eight out of 11 of our biggest export markets are member states of the Community. We shall all be striving, as indeed the Government have stated in the gracious Speech, for the completion of the internal market by the end of 1992 in accordance with the programme set out by my noble friend Lord Cockfield—and perhaps I may say that he is the most highly respected commissioner in the European Community for the work he has been, and is, doing. I should like also to pay a tribute to the presidency of the United Kingdom during the six months the Government held the presidency until the end of December 1986. Sixty-seven draft directives were completed, and 48 of them were formally adopted during the British presidency. That is the highest number so far of any presidency. There are now 180 in the public domain and of course we hope that these will progress, admittedly in accordance with a slipped timetable, but one which will catch up.

I think it is as well to recognise that the Commission and the European Parliament are trying to remove the barriers which exist in order to create the internal market, with the free movement of goods, persons and capital made possible. The barriers exist within national member states. It is not the Commission or the European Parliament; it is not the little chaps sitting in the customs office at Calais, however tiresome they can sometimes be to travellers. It is national administrations and national governments, with their legislation and administrative practices, which create the barriers. It is these barriers that we must seek to remove.

A recent independent American survey of the state of the European Community declared that business right across the Community in all the member states accepted that the trade barriers—this fragmentation into 12 member states instead of having one internal market—cost European business 15 per cent. of the total of internal trade. It is no use dazzling either myself or anybody else with figures; but it leads to the loss of several billion pounds merely because of those barriers. So we very much welcome the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government to continue pressing for their breakdown.

There are two points on which I should like to press the Government. The first is that the Government should decide to join the European exchange rate mechanism. This is a matter for business. There is no business organisation in this country that I know of—I do not think my noble friends will be able to quote any—that is not concerned because we have not yet joined that mechanism. Shadowing other European currencies is one thing, but that does not give the guarantee to business or give the confidence to the markets that we shall remain with a pound sterling which is not volatile in relation to other European currencies, where our major markets are. It would be good for business, good for Britain and good for Europe.

The second problem is that, so far as I know, the United Kingdom has not yet signed the agreement concerning the research and development programme which has been put forward by the Commission. This is very serious both for business and for the loss of our scientists. Not very long ago there was a major debate in this House on civil research expenditure in this country. That concerned only one aspect of the matter, but this is for the whole of Europe, which, after all, includes the United Kingdom. Businesses are being impeded in carrying out research because of the programmes they have set up in co-operation and collaboration with other Continental businesses, universities and research institutes, and particularly ESPRIT, the competitive programme for information technology. Schemes have had to be halted and they cannot progress until this programme is agreed. I very much hope that, if there should be a departmental bureaucratic hang-up, that will be removed so that we can get on with this programme, because for every pound the United Kingdom Government put into the programme £1.25 comes back for the benefit of industrial research in this country. That is a figure which has not been denied by the Government.

Perhaps, with permission, I may quote the statement recently published by the electronics industry, which pointed out that: Continued disagreement will either cause the total delay of the European programme, or result in the rest of Europe moving ahead without United Kingdom participation". We all know, and we have heard for many months, how Japan and the United States are 10 years ahead of us; and yet the Government have been prepared to allow this on-going programme for the development of technology to be held back. Therefore I very much hope that my noble friend, to whom I gave notice that I should raise this point, will be able to give us some encouragement.

As we know, today and tomorrow the Prime Minister and other heads of government are in Brussels, trying to solve some of the more difficult problems which have been created during the last few years. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I think, pointed out, these problems have been created by the decisions of governments and not by the Community. Indeed, the Community, and particularly the European Parliament, have put pressure on governments all the time to recognise the problem of surpluses. These keep on creeping up until they become impossible to handle, so that a percentage of the Community's budget has been going not just into the common agricultural policy—which is one thing—but into maintaining surplus supplies going into intervention. The money has been going on storage and on export restitution. That is the problem.

Let us remember that the CAP itself has provided us with food for 40 years and with self-sufficiency in this area of the world. It has also given food and relief to the famine areas of the world and indeed has kept prices in this country below the rate of inflation. The latest figure I have seen was for 1985, when in this country the rise in the price of food was 3½ per cent. and the rate of inflation was somewhere around 5 per cent. Let us also remember, although people are very anxious to destroy the common agricultural policy, that it sustains and maintains food and drink industries in this country at a level of some £6 billion in terms of retail sales; so it is not something that can be lightly disregarded.—

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I do thank her for a most excellent and interesting speech. Would she not agree in fact that the CAP is the major stumbling block and the major issue which is in need of urgent reform?

Baroness Elles

My Lords, I would certainly agree that the CAP in its budgetary aspects has caused the greatest problem precisely because prices have been allowed to rise and have been decided by governments at their agricultural prices meetings year after year. They have given massive rises so that farmers have been encouraged to produce more and more when that more and more was no longer able to be sold. It is an international problem because the markets, as we know, have become more and more restrictive. We are in the same position as America in seeking markets and having a surplus of stores. As an example, a figure which I think is very revealing shows how the United Kingdom has contributed to this problem. In 1981 the amount of butter in storage was about 1,000 tonnes and by 1986 it was 250,000 tonnes. So of course we accept that it is a problem. I entirely accept what the noble Lord has said, but the question is how to solve the problem without ruining the whole structure of the common agricultural policy, which contains very many elements which should be retained. That is really the kernel of the problem.

If one looks at the total budget, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, for this year it will be somewhere in the region of £25 billion to £26 billion. However, to satisfy 320 million people with all the policies that people want to push on, including new policies which are meant to be coming out of the Single European Act such as environmental, social, education and training policies and the like, the fact of the matter is, as the noble Lord pointed out, that that sum is equivalent to what the local authorities in Great Britain spent in 1986. How can a figure of that size be relevant when there are so many things that need to be done?

We agree, and certainly the European Parliament firmly believes, that there should be legislative measures to restrict the budget and run it with discipline. Budgetary discipline is the kernel of the matter whether it is applied to agriculture or any other aspect of the Community. There is not the necessary budgetary discipline and that has always been the fundamental problem. We have had this problem every year in the European Parliament when trying to establish a realistic budget to deal with the problems that exist. At the end of the day member states always concede to some interest within their own countries and have to come to some kind of compromise.

We certainly wish the Prime Minister well in her struggle. She has always struggled for—how shall I express it?—the economic and financial rectitude with which government and indeed Community policy should be run. However there are certain elements which will cause immense difficulties and we do not see an immediate prospect of their solution. As noble Lords may know, one of the suggestions is to pay retrospectively on the intervention—for instance, to give a two month gap and a possibility of catching up. That would deal with about £1 billion of the deficit; but the deficit would still exist and it is a very real problem indeed.

There are other longer-term aspects of the Community to which I hope Her Majesty's Government will now turn their attention. The Government have four-and-a-half to five years ahead, in which a great deal can be done in Europe for the benefit of Britain and for Europe as a whole in areas such as—just to mention a few of the more common aspects—organising a proper arms procurement policy, dealing with environmental problems, getting on with the internal market, and dealing with financial services throughout the Community. As my noble friends on this side of the House have said, there is nobody better to take the lead on these issues than our Prime Minister. Wherever she has gone in Europe there has been the greatest admiration and respect for her. If I may say so, when she came to the European Parliament in December French Socialists came up and said, "Why can't we have a Thatcher in France too?" If even the French—and Socialist French at that—thought that, I think one can obtain a measure of the respect and admiration in which she is held. Together with my noble friends I very much hope that the Prime Minister will take on the lead in Europe and show the way that we can all go to create a Community that will lead us into the year 2000.

Before sitting down, I should like to take the opportunity not only to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Young, but in my other capacity as an MEP to thank her particularly for all the help and advice that she has given over the period in which she has been Deputy Foreign Secretary to all the British Members representing British citizens in the European Parliament. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who I know will be replying for the first time to a very complex debate covering many different subjects.

7.13 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not follow her down the Common Market trail. Many years ago in another place when there was a nine-line Whip on the EEC some 30 of us defied that nine-line Whip and voted against it. Nothing that has happened since, not even the eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, has persuaded me that I was wrong on that occasion.

However, I should like to say that in all other respects I found myself in strong agreement with the contribution to this debate of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. There is only one point about which I was sorry, and that was his prophecy that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would contribute to the debate. That prophecy did not turn out to be correct in the event. She has left us now but I shall look forward to hearing her on some occasion when she is not restricted by a government brief or any other formality. It will be interesting to hear, and indeed it would have been interesting today to hear her own views.

I should like to say a few words about the gracious Speech. There has been some discussion in another place and in the press about the meaning of some of the phrases in the Speech. That is not entirely surprising. It is perhaps undesirable to ask Her Majesty to express in detail some of the rather unpleasant realities that the Government feel must be faced. Here we must discuss those realities, and as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, did not help us perhaps I may venture to assist by translating a few of the smooth phrases into harsher and plainer words so that we may more accurately assess whether or not we accept the Government's statements and believe in their intentions.

There is, for example: My Government will stand fully by their obligations to the NATO Alliance". This does not mean that the Government will stand fully by but rather that the Government will fully stand by. One supposes at least that that is what it means. Of course there is the alternative thesis—that the grammar must be intentional and that the government stance is not fully to stand by their obligations to NATO but rather to adopt a position of standing fully rather than one of standing by. That view has considerable support and is sustained by the following sentence in which the Government express their intention of acquiring the ability simultaneously to destroy several Soviet cities and all their inhabitants. That intention is expressed in the gracious Speech in the code phrase which reads: by modernising the independent … deterrent through the introduction of the Trident submarine programme". Support for that interpretation is further strengthened by those who have experience of government, who point out that the gracious Speech passes through the hands of many experienced and highly intellectual persons before being handed to Her Majesty. It is urged with authority that such a collection of Foreign Office brains would hardly put a split infinitive into the mouth of the Monarch either by accident or by neglect.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that the recent performances of Sir Robert Armstrong do not justify blind confidence in any part of the Civil Service. Be that as it may, I have no doubt that the noble Lord who will reply to this debate—I congratulate him on being in a position to do so and hope that indeed he breaks new ground by actually replying to the debate and does not merely content himself with reading his own prepared apologia—will not deny that the power of Trident will be as I have described it. That is the sort of weapon that we are proposing to acquire. Its power is enormous and incredible, multiplied by I do not know how many fold.

We are perhaps to acquire a weapon so fearsome that it can never be used because if it is used it will probably trigger off the end of our civilisation and possibly even result in the extinction of our species. At enormous expense we are to acquire a useless object in the exact sense of the word; for that which cannot be used is useless. Indeed, I suppose that the noble Lord will probably be reduced to urging the view that Polaris is not fearsome enough and that our own security demands that we as a nation need to step up our killing and destructive power to the point that, irrespective of what anyone else does, if we choose we alone can press a button so powerful as to risk ending everything. This is a proposition that the Government quite seriously have put before the electorate and have gained its support. It is this argument—acceptable to the thoughtless but frankly, rather lunatic on examination—which made such a contribution to Mrs. Thatcher's re-election.

The Conservativies won because no one really argued the case against their defence policy. The alliance was reduced to "me-tooing", while Labour gave the impression of wishing to talk about anything under the sun except our defence and disarmament policies. If we distrusted them so much ourselves that we were afraid to put them at the head of our campaign, afraid to tell the electorate that the world is in such grave danger that none of us may survive to see another general election—we distrusted our capacity to make that case and the electorate's ability to grasp—it then why should we expect them to entrust us with their fate?

To advocate defensive non-nuclear defence is the greatest sense in the world today. In this dangerous world it is the greatest sense. But to seem to want to hide it at the back of our election brief, and to appear reluctant to discuss it until forced to do so by our opponents, was seen to demonstrate a lack of confidence in our own defence policy and so to fail to deserve the support of the electorate. And so we are lumbered with what on this evidence must be seen as a government who I think it would not be too much to say are perhaps the least sane ever to occupy the majority Benches in Parliament. But let us not condemn them too soon. I may be entirely wrong, as indeed some of your Lordships may already suspect.

In the next paragraph to the one I have just quoted, we come across some very different words: My Government will strive for balanced and verifiable measures of arms control. They strongly support the United States proposals for the elimination of intermediate range nuclear missiles and 50 per cent. reductions in American and Soviet strategic nuclear weapons. What does that mean? On the one hand we are going to step up a vast increase in our nuclear destructive powers. But on the other hand we favour the elimination of one very important type of nuclear weapon and a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic weapons. What can it mean? I think it means that both statements cannot be true.

If the Trident intention is real—and this crazy proposal bears the hallmark of Mrs. Thatcher's nuclearphilia—then the undertaking I have just quoted cannot be kept, for one cannot simultaneously increase one's own nuclear capability more than tenfold—how much more than tenfold I do not know, but it is certainly much more than tenfold—and be believed when one promises to support reduction and elimination everywhere else. One is either for nuclear weapons or against them.

There can be no reasonable doubt that this Government are totally pro-nuclear. It follows therefore that any undertaking they give to the contrary is hogwash. This Government are about as anti-nuclear as the retired American General Rogers. The only difference is that he is honest about it and he does not pretend. It is an important difference and one that reflects no credit on this newly re-elected Government.

The British people have been misled. If the polls are to be believed, they are opposed by a large majority to Trident; and I suppose we must believe the polls because they forecast something I did not want to see and hoped I would not see: that is, the return of this Government. So if they are right about that, we must assume they are right about the other and that the people of this country are opposed to Trident by a very substantial majority.

If they have studied the matter at all, they must have believed that the Government's support of the American nuclear disarmament proposals was genuine and would override their commitment to Trident. I believe that the Government intend to go ahead with Trident unless the American Government make it impossible for them to do so, and that if this scuppers the present attempts to re-establish détente then "Too bad" say the Government.

Clearly it will be widely believed that this is prearranged and that Mrs. Thatcher has Mr. Reagan's assurance that Mr. Gorbachev's endeavours will come to nothing. If it is not so, let the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate make it clear that they are prepared to sacrifice Trident in the cause of world peace. If he fails to do so, we shall know two things: first, that the Government's claim to be seeking trust and confidence between East and West is verbiage, unbacked by any real intention to act; and, secondly, that the electorate has been tricked into voting for policies very likely to lead to its own destruction.

The gracious Speech goes on to talk about "balanced reductions" and the, elimination of disparities which threaten Western security. What do these words mean? Do they mean the same to us as to others? It is very desirable in any dispute or discussion to have words which mean the same thing on both sides. I am pretty sure that those words do not mean the same outside the Western Alliance. "Human rights"—what does that mean? Torture in Turkey? Murder in Sri Lanka? The denial of democracy to the majority of the people of South Africa, or of some Latin American countries and several other countries, where people disappear or are held without trial? No, nothing of that. They are part of the free world where myopia rules.

This Government's perception of injustice seems to be limited by a tunnel vision which sees no evil outside the Soviet Union and little but evil inside it. In this Mrs. Thatcher is a faithful follower of the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, who has expressed that view quite specifically. This is hardly surprising in a man who when his warship is attacked, immediately prepares to take action against the enemy of his attacker. American friends tell me that a view is growing in that country that the President's mental condition is greater cause for concern than his physical state. This would seem to be the only charitable explanation of the recent actions of Mrs. Thatcher's mentor as they emerge under Congress examination.

All round this is, I think, the most unconvincing gracious Speech that the unhappy Monarch has ever been called upon to utter. I have seldom felt more gloomy about the prospects before mankind, but I have never more fervently hoped that I am wrong.

7.28 p.m.

Lord Bramall

My Lords, first, I must apologise to your Lordships for being unavoidably detained from attending the beginning of this debate, and I therefore crave your indulgence. But there are one or two points that I should like to leave with your Lordships' House before the debate closes.

When I listened last week to the concise two paragraphs on defence in the gracious Speech from the Throne, I could only approve of the general thrust of Her Majesty's Government's intentions. Semantics apart, I greatly welcome the endorsement of the NATO Alliance as the most practical and economic way of ensuring peace with honour in what is still, even in a changing world, the area of greatest potential threat. I personally recognise, unlike some noble Lords, the cost-effectiveness of Trident in providing the ultimate insurance against a nuclear threat or a nuclear attack against the British Isles. I applaud the declared intention of increasing the effectiveness of NATO's conventional forces, in order to raise the necessary nuclear threshold clearly away from the category of any precipitous trip-wire. I suspect that, despite the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I have the agreement of all sides of the House in my support for the goals of balanced and verifiable arms control, the elimination of intermediate range nuclear missiles and a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. Noble Lords may remember that I said as much in my maiden speech in March.

However, I must say that if over the next three years Her Majesty's Government make no further provision for defence funds than they have at the moment, then the statement in the Speech which says: They will sustain Britain's contribution to Western defence by modernising the independent nuclear deterrent … and by increasing the effectiveness of the nation's conventional forces is in real danger of becoming a contradiction in terms.

One can only increase the effectiveness of our conventional forces, if that is really the Government's intention, by modernising their equipment, improving their training and increasing their staying power particularly through the provision of greater stocks of ammunition in comparison with the unsatisfactorily and sometimes dangerously low level that exists at present. Yet those are the very areas that, with defence expenditure declining so it appears from 3 per cent. growth in real terms a year ago to 5 to 6 per cent. negative growth over the next three years, are going to suffer, let alone improve. The useful existing—and in some cases in the light of the Warsaw Pact's great technical improvements—badly needed re-equipment programme will, I am confident, largely survive. It may have to slip sideways by extending and running on certain obsolescent equipments beyond their anticipated life, but it will become almost impossible to insert anything new into the programme, however badly needed more recent experience has shown those things to be. However the greatest effect will be found in manpower which is already cut to the bone in relation to the unchanging commitments, and in those things which can only be touched and cut in a cash squeeze of this kind, because all other money is already committed. I refer of course to petrol and therefore track mileage, training flights, ammunition, spare parts and all those things that affect activity, professional capability, staying power and ultimately morale.

In the days when the country seemed, to an outsider anyhow to be permanently broke, defence was exhorted, not unnaturally, to tighten its belt and to take its share of the burden like everyone else. However, now we are led to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great deal of money at his disposal. Therefore, it is not a question of the money not being here; it is a question of what other things the Government may wish to spend it on and how much they will wish to reduce taxes. Therefore the Government must pay their money and take their choice. That is of course their prerogative. However, they cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot modernise the deterrent, maintain very expensive equipment programmes particularly in aviation, reduce none of their commitments either inside NATO or outside it, and at the same time convince themselves and others that they are increasing the effectiveness of the conventional forces. And all on between 8 to 9 per cent. less money in real terms over four years, and when, so far as I can judge, the Government propose to spend no greater percentage of the gross national product on defence than the historic level they inherited and so criticised when they came to power 10 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who is the Minister of State for Defence Procurement can correct me if I am wrong.

In my view Her Majesty's Government are pursuing absolutely the correct defence policy, but it is significantly underfunded. If noble Lords dislike my analysis and feel that the money allocated is all the country can afford, they will be drawn inevitably to the conclusion that whereas the resources may be right, the programme and policy which those resources have to sustain is now overfull and urgently in need of a thorough review. However, I would not be at all clear about what that review could achieve which would not do damage to the country's security and the cohesion and effectiveness of NATO.

7.35 p.m.

Lord Walston

My Lords, first, may I offer personally and on behalf of all my colleagues my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on his exciting and interesting new job which I am sure he will fulfil admirably. May I also offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness who has vacated that post on having finally regained her freedom after many years of hard labour. She has given us a great deal of her time and her undoubted energies and wisdom. We have always appreciated that, even if we have not always agreed with what she has done and what she has said.

While on the subject of congratulations, may I say how happy I am that the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, was able to come along and, in a few minutes, give us the benefit of his great wisdom and experience. I am particularly happy because the views that he has expressed are those which, I think I may say, have the wholehearted support of these Benches. In fact, he might even consider coming and sitting here instead of at the other end of the Chamber.

Anyone who had any doubts beforehand would have no doubts at all after listening to the debate that the world is, to put it very mildly in a disturbed state. Your Lordships have reminded us of some of the trouble spots. Obviously, the Gulf is a major one at the present time with terrifying things happening there. Central America, which has received some mention but not a great deal, is another. It is a long way from us here in Europe but is still of very great significance in the balance of world power.

Southern Africa which is an old favourite, if I may use that word, with many noble Lords, is still in just as unhappy a state as it has been for many decades. Not only southern Africa but the rest of Africa is suffering, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, reminded us, from an appalling burden of debt. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, very rightly spoke of that. He spoke of the debts of the third world as a whole, but specifically of Africa, where the income from commodities in 1985 was 64 billion dollars. That fell by very nearly one-third in 1986 to 45 billion dollars, primarily because of the fall in commodity prices. As a result, although Africa received 12 billion dollars in aid last year, it had to pay back 14 billion dollars in interest on the aid that it had already received, That, surely, is a subject which requires very detailed thought, study and action.

The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, was, I believe, the only speaker to remind us of the importance of the South Pacific, not only Fiji where rather disturbing things are happening about which we hear very little, but also the potential dangers in the small but strategically important and significant islands of that part of the world.

On top of all those matters, we have the threats of terrorism, hostage-taking and all the rest of it. So there can be no doubt that the world is in a sorry state. It is one of the objectives of this debate to see what action this country can take to make some improvement in that situation. To my mind, that leads us directly to the European Economic Community.

As your Lordships will remember, the original objectives and hopes of the founding fathers, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, which were supported by those who worked for it, were, first, to create a permanently peaceful Europe and especially to prevent war ever arising again between those historical antagonists, Germany and France. It was also hoped that Eastern Europe would be brought into the Community. Those objectives and hopes were supported by such people as my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. May I say that a conversation which I had with him more than 25 years ago brought me fully into the European camp.

That first objective and hope has been fulfilled. I think that war between the member states of Western Europe is now inconceivable. France and Germany have established a strong and sincere partnership. So far as Eastern Europe is concerned, it is too early to pass judgment. However, that possibility must not be absent from our minds.

The second objective was to create an economic community of comparable size with the two giants of East and West, the United States and the Soviet Union, so that we, in Western Europe, would be able to compete with them economically on equal terms. It was recognised then, and is recognised now, even by those who were doubters in the past, that the individual countries of Europe would not regain their 18th, 19th and early 20th century greatness either economically or politically. It was only by working together that they could compete economically with the two giants.

It was not only for economic reasons that this was done. It was realised full well that unless Europe was an economic power comparable to the super powers, the voice of Europe in other matters would not be heard and, if heard, would not be listened to. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that in matters of nuclear disarmament we are frustrated because we have no seat at the conference table. That is absolutely right.

We have to face the fact that decisions are now left and, unfortunately, have to be left, to the two super powers. We know full well that one of those powers—the Soviet Union—has values very different from our own to which we cannot subscribe. With the greatest respect, the United States lacks the experience which would enable it to play the part that should be played on the world stage. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, mentioned that aspect in far more diplomatic and forceful language than I can command. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, also commented on the same matter.

Therefore, although the first of the objectives has been fulfilled with a permanently peaceful Europe, the second objective of the creation of a really effective economic community has failed to materialise. Certainly, the objective of creating a powerful voice, speaking with the experience of Europe over many centuries and bringing that experience to bear on world affairs with a united voice, has lamentably failed.

I suggest to your Lordships that the reason for failure is not only that all these things take time. Of course, when one is young one is impatient and wants to get on and do things. When one is old, one is impatient because one wants to see the results before one dies. But it is not simply that form of impatience which we find; rather it is the impatience we feel because the world is crying out for the voice of Europe. Without it, the future looks almost as bleak as that which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney considers it to be, though perhaps for different reasons.

The reason that this has happened, I suggest, is that in the years when these great objectives should have been always before the minds of those who met to discuss them, the heads of government and ministers have instead spent their time (as, alas, I believe they will be spending their time today and tomorrow) in haggling over minor, albeit important, matters such as the price of wheat—that is obviously close to my heart—and whether there should be import duties on vegetable oils and matters of that kind. They will neglect the greater and more important matters.

Until we can put time-consuming, market-place haggling behind us and enable our leaders to turn their minds and energies to more important issues, we shall never be able to make the progress that is neccessary in order to enable the European Community to fulfil the role which it was hoped and intended by its founders that it would fulfil.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has said, we should join the EMS. We need to press ahead with research and development and to develop the European Community. It is also of vital importance—and I make no apology for coming back to the matter—to ensure that the common agricultural policy ceases to be a bone of contention which takes up the time of every Council of Ministers meeting and every other meeting of that kind.

I shall not weary your Lordships with a repetition of suggestions that I have put forward on many occasions. But it is absolutly essential that while the economic aspect of the common agricultural policy should remain within the preserve of the European Commission and of the EC as a whole and should be decided on a Community basis, the social aspect—not only the well-being of farmers but that of rural communities and the prevention of our environment falling into disrepair with the risk of rural slums if a realistic economic policy were followed—should be taken out of the Community to a very large extent and should be nationalised. It should revert to individual governments in view of the enormous differences in standards of living of their people and, for instance, the comparability between Portugal and Greece on the one hand, and Denmark and the Netherlands on the other, with money being provided from the Community for social reasons and not for economic reasons.

If the Community is to be a real community we should understand and accept the problems that arise from disparities of wealth between the different member countries, just as there is, although I know some people deny it the North-South divide in this country. The prosperous South has to give aid to the less prosperous North. Therefore, in a real community the prosperous northern countries must make available money to their less prosperous neighbours in the south, for example, Spain, Portugal, Greece and possibly even southern Italy.

There has to be a transfer of funds and real wealth, and that will cost money. It is no good going to Brussels or wherever the heads of governments may meet and saying, "Give me back my money". That is not the spirit which is going to create the sort of Europe, the sort of community which is essential if the voice of Europe is to be once more heard in world councils. If we fail on that matter, the decisions are going to be left purely to bargaining between the two super powers, with Europe and its vast fund of experience and goodwill being ignored.

7.52 p.m.

Lord Irving of Dartford

My Lords, I think that all noble Lords agree that it has been a very wide-ranging debate—some noble Lords may say too wide ranging. For me it confirms the wisdom of the submission made by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos to the Leader of the House on Thursday, namely, that next year we should consider having two separate days—one for foreign affairs and one for defence.

The White Paper said: We remain [as a Government] totally committed to maintaining a strong defence, both nuclear and conventional. However, the White Paper was seen by many as a document written with the General Election in mind. As the report of the University of Bradford said, it was: a bland document with all the harsh decisions delayed till after the General Election. The Secretary of State for Defence said: the defence posture we have at the moment will be continued. He has even ruled out a defence review by a future Conservative Government, saying: I do not see any sign that it is necessary. Almost every independent analyst and almost all defence correspondents who have looked at the facts as the Government have presented them, and some senior officers too, believe it to be inevitable. They believe as we do that radical measures will be needed to balance the books. General Sir Frank Kitsen, Commander In Chief Land Forces until 18 months ago, said: it is absolutely necessary to make a major re-assessment of the Services defence commitment within the next few years". The Government claim that they can be trusted with the defence of the Realm, and even say that they are the only party that can be trusted with defence. In reality they have begun presiding over a major cutback in Britain's real defences and we believe that this will be damaging. I was glad to have confirmation by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made in such a powerful way and coming from someone who was so recently at the centre of these affairs.

However, the Government's plans will mean a considerable cutback—some commentators say a huge cutback—in our Navy, Air Force and Army over the next decade. We believe that the Government have a nuclear obsession. They have agreed to spend £10 billion on the Trident missile system. Independent experts say that it will cost much more. Buying Trident—and I do not expect the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, to follow me in this regard will increase the number of targets Britain's strategic nuclear arsenal can hit eight-fold, from 64 to 512. That will escalate the nuclear arms race just as President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev are discussing cuts of at least 50 per cent. in their intermediate nuclear weapons and considering a ban on all ballistic nuclear missiles, including Trident.

The Bradford University analysis and other analyses conclude that the Government plans mean that Britain's Armed Forces face cuts of more than one-third of their allocation for new equipment over the next five years. They reckon that the main causes are, first, the cost of Trident; secondly, the overall decline in planned defence expenditure; and, thirdly, the soaring costs of new military equipment. Professor Laurence Friedman has said that the Eurofighter programme may cost a lot more than Trident. Government plans mean that defence spending will be cut by 7.8 per cent. by 1989.

David Greenwood, who is perhaps the country's leading defence economist, believes that £25 billion will be needed annually by 1990–91—nearly £5 billion more than the Ministry of Defence will receive. As I indicated, it is true, as has been said, that the Government raised expenditure to £19 billion a year. Of course, it is now falling and will continue to fall for the next three or four years. By next year defence spending is due to have fallen as a percentage of national income in 1984 of 5.3 per cent. to—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said—the level of the Seventies. The consequences for the Army are already to be seen.

The noble Lord, Lord Morpeth, an officer with 20 years' service has resigned his commission. He said: I have resigned my commission to protest about the Government's present defence policy which is having damaging consequences on the training, manning and conditions of service in the regular Army. While the noble Lord may not find the noble Lord, Lord Morpeth, a convincing witness, most of the 20 senor officers recently retired and who were interviewed by the Independent newspaper said the same thing. Already orders for major equipment have declined. There have been cuts in conventional weaponry, equipment and training. All this will make our contribution to NATO's role in Germany less efficient.

As for the Navy, we have seen a decline in the number of surface ships available for our NATO commitment of 50. As orders for naval ships have fallen below the rate necessary to maintain 50, the Secretary of State has weakened the commitment by talking not of 50, but of about 50. At present there are only 47 available for that purpose. It will probably mean the loss of five frigates and destroyers. The life of key ships in the fleet will be stretched from 18 to 22 years. Big cuts will continue in the number of support vessels and there is likely to be a cut of five in the number of conventionally armed submarines.

As regards the RAF, we have already seen the postponement of delivery of Tornado aircraft because of our dispatch of them to Saudi Arabia. The new batch of Harriers has not been ordered. I see that the noble Lord disagrees; I was not aware of the significance of the statement made this afternoon. However, as far as I am aware the new batch of Harriers has not been ordered and there is also a delay in placing the £9 billion order for Eurofighters. That figure may be pruned and we will not be able to participate in the next generation of Eurofighters due to enter service in 1995. Despite the consequences for our conventional defence the Government are determined to have their own independent nuclear deterrent.

It is important that the super powers be supported in making as much progress in controlled nuclear disarmament as possible on a basis of proper verification. However, the idea that peace can be maintained only by strengthening our nuclear power and extending it is a dangerous illusion. The Russians have changed their view not because of Britain's or NATO's nuclear strength, but because the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev, has realised that the Soviet Union can survive only if its industrial base is sound, and controlled disarmament is the only way in which to obtain security so that the energies of the nation can be applied to building its industrial strength. I believe that there may be other and more profound influences at work; but so far as I am concerned, and so far as my party is concerned, these are influences which we ought to be encouraging and not discouraging. It seems in our view a bad deal to prejudice our commitments to NATO because of an obsession with nuclear weapons.

The question of course is if we insist on Trident, will we get it? Mrs. Thatcher has made it clear that she believes we must have nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Mrs. Thatcher cannot envisage a time when they will not be necessary. However, it is clear that neither President Reagan nor Mr. Gorbachev believe this as they are both committed to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Indeed, Mr. Reagan has gone further in categorising nuclear weapons as being immoral.

We believe that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent remains a dangerous illusion. It is a threat both to our defence and to our disarmament efforts. It will only acquire a real significance on the day when the United States starts to seem seriously detached from Europe's nuclear defence. But the corollary to the United States detachment from Europe is almost certain to bring a reappraisal of Britain's right to have its own independent nuclear deterrent. It would look suicidal, we believe, to a United States which had given up its own nuclear weapons, to hand over to Britain a nuclear weapon which could destabilise the whole balance in the world. As Trident is to be serviced by the United States of America the Americans can at all times refuse to have it serviced and take whatever action they wish in this situation.

I said in December that one of the effects of Reykjavik was to make us all face up to whether we favoured controlled nuclear disarmament. Clearly Mrs. Thatcher is going to be an obstacle to complete agreement. The Government must indicate what we say to other countries like Libya, Pakistan, Israel and China when they say to us, "If an independent nuclear deterrent is necessary for Britain's prestige and security why should we not have one?" In other words the Government must accept the responsibilty for encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons with all the risk that it involves.

If we persist with nuclear weapons, how do we stop the escalation to major conflicts as a result of NATO's policy of the early use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? NATO's policy is for the early use of tactical nuclear weapons in the case of our forward forces being attacked and over-run. In respect of those tactical nuclear weapons on the West German border it would be a case of "Use them or lose them". It is accepted even by our own commanders that the use of such weapons would lead inevitably to escalation and to larger nuclear weapons. As Henry Kissinger said as early as 1979, NATO's threat of the early use of nuclear weapons is suicidal. The consequence of the use of even small tactical nuclear weapons is serious not only for the enemy but for our own troops and for the local population. If we have not learnt that, we have learnt nothing from Chernobyl.

Progress towards agreement to rid Europe of INF and smaller nuclear weapons is welcome. Is it wise? Professor Sir Michael Howard who has been a long time commentator in this field and is now Regius Professor of History at Oxford, said in answer to the question whether we can dispense with Pershing and cruise that, the short answer is yes, we can, if we think in terms not of political symbols but of military needs … the structure of deterrence was stable before the introduction of cruise and Pershing. It would be no less so if they are taken away. Sir Hugh Beech, Director of Arms Control, said on television on Friday night: Removal of cruise and Pershing would not upset the balance. The crucial question is: what is the balance between East and West? Many Members on the other side of the House have sought to curdle the blood by reeling off lists of weapons demonstrating the overwhelming superiority of the Warsaw Pact powers. The Minister did this in a debate in December and again this afternoon. General Rogers did this very forcibly on Friday in "Newsnight". Let me say two things about this. First, it is very difficult to get a true assessment of the balance. Secondly, if there is a real, marked superiority on the Soviet side this is a very serious matter.

The cold war rhetoric of the Government, the United States and the press makes it difficult to assess the balance. However, an increasing number of independent analysts and defence correspondents believe that the Government have got it wrong. Recent polls confirm that one-third of the people in this country believe that NATO could not resist a Soviet attack without resorting to nuclear weapons. Fewer and fewer independent analysts support this view. On 4th June the Guardian said that the Defence Ministry is exaggerating the Soviet military threat in Central Europe. The Deputy Supreme Commander—a German General, General Mack—put it more bluntly. He said that we could handle a five-to-one Soviet superiority and if we couldn't cope with those Russian peasants we might as well hoist the while flag now". That is an extraordinary thing to say. He is, however, not someone who is ignorant or likely to be complacent about Soviet military power but is NATO's Deputy Supreme Commander.

For analysis of the facts relating to the balance, I commend the House to the articles which have appeared in the Independent by Mark Urban and Peter Pringle, and to other reports like SANA. NATO has consistently outspent the Warsaw Pact powers since 1965 yet the assumption is that the Pact countries get more capability for their spending. Joshua Epstein of Brookings Institute says that, there is no convincing evidence that this is true". The Pentagon figures give the Warsw Pact powers more than two tanks for every one of NATO's. The figures published in the White Paper cover a smaller area than does the Pentagon—the central front in Europe—and paint a bleak prospect for the West.

That is not the whole story. The Pentagon figures leave out France, one of the most powerful countries in Europe. France is excluded despite its commitment to help Germany if attacked and the presence of a French army in Germany. No account is taken of half-hearted Warsaw Pact members, such as Rumania which is constitutionally bound not to deploy its forces outside its borders, which are included in the Eastern bloc totals. An analysis which includes French and Spanish military power presents a much less frightening picture. The Warsaw Pact edge in tanks comes to 1.5 to one and in divisions 1.2 to one. Even this does not paint an accurate picture because it ignores vital factors in the conventional balance. Few people who examine those other factors believe that the East has an overwhelming superiority.

For several years the Institute of Strategic Studies has concluded that the conventional balance is such that neither side could contemplate attacking the other with any hope of success. General Rogers said that he sees no possibility of a surprise attack. Similar studies have been done in the United States by the Rand Corporation, the Brookings Institute, the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Defence in its annual report to Congress. These analyses all conclude that where a whole range of factors such as quality of men, machines, training and readiness are taken into account there is roughly parity between the two opposing forces.

Soviet warplanes are rarely purchased on a large scale. Warsaw Pact armies spend on average only half as much time on exercise as their NATO counterparts. The result is that Soviet soldiers are less well trained and whole sections of the pact's military system have never been tested. The response to a limited call-up in the Soviet Union during the 1981 Polish crisis is a case in point. According to reports, many reservists ignored the mobilisation and the Soviet Union's plans were disrupted. By comparison, Britain tested virtually its whole reserve and reinforcement system during exercise Lionheart in 1984. Yet the Soviet Union, which has a military complex three times that of this country, has conducted only one exercise for the Soviet garrison in East Germany, and that was in 1972. The results did not bode well for any attempt to launch an attack on the West. It was reported that the exercise was carried off with considerable confusion and a high accident rate.

Almost all comparisons of military strength acknowledge the pact's superiority in tanks but two-thirds of the Soviety Army's tanks are old TS55s and TS62 models. In other Warsaw Pact armies, obsolete types make up nearly 80 per cent. of the total strength.

There are many troops in central Europe, but many analysts believe that a Soviet advance could run into vast traffic jams. Soviet commanders would find their tanks channelled by the forests and the built-up areas that cross 38 per cent. of the surface of West Germany. With each division needing 300 kilometres of road, bottlenecks would give NATO aircraft irresistible targets. That is perhaps why we ought to give the F-111s a non-nuclear role.

Israel's heavily mechanised army was slowed to a crawl by precisely those factors in Lebanon in 1982, and that was against an enemy with a fraction of NATO's firepower.

NATO combat aircraft tend to be more reliable and to carry more bombs than their Warsaw Pact counterparts. One survey discovered that at a range of 200 miles from base, NATO aircraft carry seven times more bombs than those of the Warsaw Pact.

Finally, NATO enjoys a considerable technological lead. Last year, General Charles Gabriel, US Air Force Chief of Staff, stated that the Russians were 10 years away from having planes comparable with the F-15 and F-16.

Since the Second World War, NATO's firepower had increased by a much larger factor than mobility. Now NATO conventional weapons, such as the multiple launch rocket system and fuel—an explosive bomb—are as destructive as small nuclear devices. Each battery of eight MLRS launchers under the British Army alone can lay down over 61,000 antitank charges in a few minutes. Devastating firepower gives the advantage to the defenders, as eight years of a bloody stalemate in the Gulf war have shown.

The evidence suggests that anybody in Washington or Moscow who believes that the Soviets could be at the Rhine in five days is deluding himself.

Certainly General Mack thinks that defence against the numerically superior Pact powers is quite possible, and he represents expert opinion with whom few would wish to quarrel. I think that perhaps within a year from the departure of General Rogers the validity of this analysis will be much more widely accepted.

The significance of that is that with the cancellation of Trident and a continuation of the present level of spending, we can assure ourselves that it will be safe not only to secure controlled nuclear disarmament but to work towards a controlled reduction of conventional forces.

It should be clear that we can assure an effective balance in Europe without the dangerous reliance on nuclear weapons and particularly the dangers of many of the risks involved in the early use of tactical nuclear weapons and the risk of escalation.

There was much talk during the election of America being decoupled from Europe. It is true that America has other pressing commitments, but what Mr. Caspar Weinberger said last year will determine whether America stays in Europe. He said: America is in Europe not as an act of charity but in defence of vital American interests. Those interests will remain and they will be served by vital installations in this country in terms of intelligence communications which cover the whole of the north American continent. We certainly do not wish to put our security at risk. However, we believe that the Government's claim that they can be trusted with defence is no more true of defence than it is of our hospitals or education—that is, as long as they reduce defence expenditure and depend upon Trident which as a British independent nuclear deterrent will have no credibility at all.

None of that should make us complacent. A more accurate assessment of the threat should make us able to deal with it. The White Paper departs from the previous policy. It accepts that nuclear weapons should be a permanent feature of our defences. In the past they have been justified, particularly in Europe, as necessary to redress the shortfall in conventional forces. We should be doing everything to seize the historic opportunity to secure controlled nuclear disarmament and should not be undermining the effort by spending the money on Trident and by reducing our budget for conventional forces at this time. We should be developing the trust and confidence which in time will make it possible to have a controlled reduction in conventional forces and chemical weapons so that we can achieve at least a greater stability and a surer peace for the world.

8.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, we have had a valuable and, as the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, has rightly noted, wide-ranging debate. I am conscious that I am a newcomer to the field of foreign affairs. I am very much aware of the degree of experience on this subject displayed by all sides of your Lordships' House. I am grateful to your Lordships for the kind remarks which have been made about my new responsibilities. It is an exciting prospect and challenge for me, but I am acutely aware of the fact that I have much to learn.

In winding up I shall try to draw together the many strands of the debate. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne concentrated on defence issues set in the overall context of our foreign policy. I shall therefore primarily cover foreign policy issues in greater detail.

I must begin by joining all your Lordships who have paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Young, my predecessor in the Foreign Office. I do so not just for the admirable way in which she moved the Motion for a humble Address to Her Majesty but for her many achievements both in this House and internationally during her four years in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On the basis of a mere two weeks' experience there, I can already testify to the esteem and affection in which she is held by the diplomatic service. Her standing is equally high within the international community and especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, to which she devoted particular attention as a Minister. We are indeed all most grateful to her.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the record of the past eight years bears witness to the many and varied changes to our society here in Britain. Those changes were long overdue but are now bringing our country recognisable and significant benefits. The next five years will see further advances. Indeed, I believe that the pace of change will quicken.

That success at home has given us greater confidence and sense of purpose abroad. Britain is seen to have emerged from a trough of uncertainty, from declining standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, hinted, we now have a good story to tell. In the international community our counsel is sought and valued. Our consistency is admired, although the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will not agree. The United Kingdom now counts.

This debate has shown the many international problems we face. Others will no doubt be added to them. But this Government will bring to each problem a clear analysis of the right way forward, not just for Britain but for freedom and democracy the world over. In other words, we must continue to build on the approach that has served this country well over eight years.

Let me consider in turn some of the key areas to which some of your Lordships have referred; first, the European Community, on which my noble friend Lady Elles, the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Walston, and others have spoken so interestingly. There is now no doubt that the Government—indeed, the country—are firmly committed to Europe. The days of "Heavy fog in Channel: Continent isolated" are long over. Our partners in Europe know that. We can play a central role in badly needed reforms from a position of strength.

Since 1979, much has been achieved. The Community is now not just more responsive to British interests but more relevant to all our citizens. But reform must continue. The Community will not pull its weight and have a credible international voice if it cannot balance its books. As my noble friend Lady Elles would wish, we shall continue to work for effective controls of its budget and to develop a genuine and open market in financial and other services. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Fontainebleau formula remains the basis of our discussions on the budget.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and my noble friend Lady Elles asked whether completion of the internal market was possible by 1992. The 1992 target was always ambitious, but it can be attained if every presidency makes a real effort to give decision-making top priority. We did with a record of 48 items. The Belgians have reached agreement on almost 30. As I understand it, over 100 measures have now been agreed.

We must deal with the major inefficiencies that still inhibit the Community's full potential. Above all, and here I entirely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Ardwick, it is the common agricultural policy that really cries out for reform. The public are indignant, and rightly so, about the growing surpluses of expensively subsidised food and the massive handouts that all this involves. Whatever its original merits, the CAP as it stands undermines both the strength and the reputation of the Community. It represents the sort of economic lunacy for which we rightly condemn socialist countries, producing goods which nobody wants to buy. We shall be looking for a number of technical improvements in the managment of the Community's budget and stabilising measures to ensure that spending on agricultural production does not again get out of control. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be working to this end in Brussels today and tomorrow.

Profligacy in agriculture is not confined to the Community. Subsidy schemes and other forms of support are producing serious economic distortions in the United States and also Japan. World trade is suffering. All this calls for joint and radical action on lines agreed at the recent summit in Venice. The major powers must work together if non-inflationary growth is to be maintained and the spread of protectionism resisted.

My noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to research and development and the framework programme for that. I noted their remarks and I can say that the Government are still considering the presidency's compromise proposal and discussions are continuing. It is essential that with such a large amount of expenditure we ensure that real value for money is achieved. My noble friend Lady Elles also asked about the exchange rate mechanism. I understand her concern and recognise the political and economic case for joining. But there are arguments both ways and we need to get it right. We have always said we will join when the balance of arguments is in favour, though I suspect my noble friend might have heard those words before.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne earlier drew attention to the defence implications of arms control. This was a matter raised by many noble Lords, including Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet. I should like to reinforce the message of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I shall not preach to the unconvertible (it is reassuring to see that the colourful enthusiasm of the noble Lord Lord Jenkins, remains undiminished, despite the election) by dwelling on the dangers of unilateralism, that extraordinary concept of giving the Soviet Union something for nothing. Instead I merely point to the clear advances we now look set to derive from having stood firm.

It is simply nonsense to suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, did, that our sole preoccupation over many years has been building more and better nuclear weapons. For the first time since nuclear weapons were invented, there is now a real chance of sizeable reductions in both sides' nuclear arsenals. We even see Mr. Gorbachev claiming credit for proposals which NATO first suggested and which his predecessors rejected.

Our position on INF is clear and responsible. We all want to see a significant reduction in both sides' nuclear arsenals, but it is unrealistic to think of a denuclearised Europe. The nuclear deterrent has kept the peace in Europe for 40 years and we could not contemplate an INF agreement which could not be effectively verified. We are not seeking unilateral advantage. We want an agreement with which both sides will feel comfortable, one that will last. But we must not allow the Soviet Union to score easy propaganda points which only threaten the agreement now in sight. Above all, the West must remain united throughout the difficult period of negotiations ahead.

My noble friend Lord Bessborough was certainly right to point out that to achieve mutual security at far lower levels of armaments, arms reductions must not stop with INF. We want a worldwide ban on chemical weapons; we support the American proposal to halve strategic missiles; and we must break the log-jam over reducing the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe where, despite the mathematical gymnastics of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, the Russians enjoy overwhelming superiority.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

Can the noble Lord substantiate that statement?

Lord Glenarthur

Yes, I can substantiate the statement. If the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, looks at page 64 of the Defence White Paper, it shows that in Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, the Soviet Union has an advantage of 3 to 1 in tanks, 3 to 1 in artillery and nearly 2 to 1 in aircraft. He will find it all there to study at his leisure.

Lord Irving of Dartford

Would the noble Lord tell me whether the Defence White Paper puts any of the qualifications which I made about the balance? If it does not, is it not accurate?

Lord Glenarthur

I think the best thing the noble Lord, Lord Irving, can do is to study the White Paper with greater care. It sets out the facts quite clearly and I invite him to study it once more.

The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, asked about the strategic defence initiative. The Government support the US SDI research programme which is permitted under existing agreements and which is a prudent hedge against parallel Soviet efforts. We welcome the Soviet withdrawal of the linkage imposed between this and talks on intermediate range nuclear missiles. We hope, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne explained, that early progress could also be made on reductions in strategic offensive weapons.

My noble friend Lord Bessborough mentioned United Kingdom contracts for SDI. British companies and institutions have won 23 contracts valued at a total of 34 million United States dollars and we continue to look for further opportunities. Indeed, I understand that a number of prospects are nearing completion, or at least contractual completion, as far as I know.

My noble friend Lord Ashbourne raised a number of important points. On the protection of the merchant fleet, I can confirm that it is this Government's intention to maintain a destroyer and frigate escort force of about 50 ships. It is expected that the average age of the destroyer and frigate force and the whole fleet will decrease slightly over the next four or five years.

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to a connected point on this theme, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, who raised certain points on the procurement side, will find that he has been labouring under some misapprehensions. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne will write to him to explain where those lie.

Lord Irving of Dartford

Would the noble Lord accept that this is a misapprehension which almost all defence correspondents and analysts suffer as well?

Lord Glenarthur

The noble Lord is entitled to his point of view. My noble friend will write to him. As for the defence estate to which my noble friend Lord Ashbourne referred, that is perhaps a matter on which I can again write to my noble friend, time not being exactly on my side.

I listened with care to the points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and to his important remarks about our independent deterrent. How much I agree with what he said. As to the remarks he made about funding, I shall certainly, as I am sure will my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, draw those to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Arms control is only one aspect of the East-West relationship, though a very important one. We saw from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's successful visit to Moscow in March that frankness and firmness in dealing with the Soviet Union pay off. We have welcomed Mr. Gorbachev's reforms, to which the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Ardwick referred, but we must see an end to human rights abuses and the early and complete removal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan—

Lord Molloy

What about South Africa?

Lord Glenarthur

—to know what the so-called new thinking in Soviet policy will mean in practice.

In the context of Western security, I must emphasise, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough would have me do, the value we place on the relationship with the United States. This is not to belittle the European defence effort. My noble friend Lord Reay has rightly drawn attention to its importance. But the security of Europe is unthinkable without the United States nuclear commitment, the presence of United States nuclear forces in Europe and the deployment of its troops on the ground here. Partnership in NATO is only one aspect of a much wider commercial, economic and political bond which neither side must take for granted.

Lord Molloy

If the noble Lord will permit me—

Lord Glenarthur

I have given way several times already.

Lord Molloy

Very briefly, do this Government support the United States of America in its total condemnation of South Africa and apartheid and will they now impose sanctions?

Lord Glenarthur

The Government's views on the Government of South Africa and apartheid have been made clear on many occasions from this Dispatch Box and I do not have time to cover them in detail tonight. But I know what the noble Lord would expect me to say.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on Afghanistan, I can say that we have no interest in prolonging the war in Afghanistan but the Soviet Union has done little in the past to inspire confidence. As I have said earlier, we hope for signs that they now mean business but no one can expect Afghanistan's freedom fighters to stand passively by in the absence of clear evidence, nor the 5 million Afghan refugees to accept their present situation with equanimity.

As my noble friend Lord Auckland has rightly reminded us, British interests extend far beyond Europe and the United States. The Commonwealth provides a unique forum for discussing international problems. My noble friend Lord Auckland referred to the importance of a number of specific members, and I entirely endorse his remarks. However, I would not limit his sentiments to any single region. We believe in the Commonwealth. That is why we channelled some three quarters of our bilateral aid to Commonwealth countries. We shall continue to use our aid with care and compassion and with the interests of the recipients firmly in mind.

My noble friend referred to Fiji. I can say that we hope that the consultative process that the Governor-General has proposed will fully and carefully consider the fears and aspirations of all groups which make up the people of Fiji.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, referred to overseas students. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary welcomed the report of the Overseas Students Trust on The Next Steps: Overseas Student Policy in the 1990s, earlier this year. It is currently under consideration and will be discussed by the round table meeting on overseas students later this year. As your Lordships will probably know, we have provided £87 million in the last financial year to bring 17,500 students to the United Kingdom. Three quarters of these students came from the Commonwealth.

The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with his immense experience, referred to Hong Kong. I am very glad to have been given ministerial responsibility for Hong Kong, and this evening I should like to say a word on that territory. Implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong is going well. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Governor of Hong Kong have each held useful discussions recently with the Chinese Foreign Minister. We will maintain this valuable pattern of high-level contact. We are encouraged by the results of our exchanges at all levels. As the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, indicated, in May the Hong Kong Government published a Green Paper listing a range of options for the further development of representative government. The people of Hong Kong will be expressing their views. We hope that all sections of the Community will make their opinion known. We, for our part, are doing all that we can to make the process of consultation a success.

Confidence in the territory's future might sometimes seem to waver but the performance of Hong Kong's economy among other indicators demonstrates that Hong Kong believes in its own future. I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government do too. We remain firmly committed to the welfare and well being of Hong Kong's people. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that we shall make every effort to relieve the plight of refugees in Hong Kong and to persuade other countries to follow our example by accepting more refugees.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that in due time we might return to the question of the Falkland Islanders. Perhaps I can once again repeat our firm commitment to the Falkland Islanders. They must continue to be free to live under a government of their own choosing. We are also committed to seeking more normal relations with Argentina. Argentina's response has been disappointing, but our efforts will continue. We must not and will not neglect Latin America.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised the threat to freedom of navigation in the Gulf. The Government naturally share his concern. This threat has increased in recent months and carries great risk of confrontation, escalation and miscalculation, as vividly demonstrated by the tragic attack on the USS "Stark". Like others, we have ships in the region—the Armilla Patrol—to protect our right of free navigation. Our presence is non-confrontational. It is designed to protect legitimate British interests. We naturally consult closely with other allies and keep our deployments in the Gulf under review. We judge our present deployment—two warships and an RFA, with another warship in reserve in the Indian Ocean—adequate to its task.

On the question of an international conference on the Middle East, to which the noble Lord referred, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, we and our European partners firmly support the principle of an international conference as the best way towards negotiations between the parties directly concerned. We welcome the efforts made, notably by Mr. Peres and King Hussein, to reach agreement on arrangements for a conference. These should be energetically pursued.

The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, raised a number of points about human rights. He asked in particular about the current situation in Uganda. We support President Museveni's efforts to restore peace. We are encouraged that Amnesty International has recently reported a significant improvement in the human rights situation there. The noble Viscount asked about British aid. Since the president came to power last year we have committed £15 million from aid funds: £5 million has gone towards emergency supplies and £10 million for development projects. We have pledged a further £25 million, the balance of payments support, over the next two years subject to the maintenance of the economic reform programme announced by the president on 15th May.

I have attempted to cover a lot of ground. I shall certainly study all that has been said when I read the Official Report tomorrow. Where I have failed to answer any particular point I shall write, or I am sure my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will do so, to cover it. However, my theme today has been the Government's determination to build on the solid foundations established during the last eight years. The international agenda over the next few years will present every bit as great a challenge as the one tackled during the life of the last two Parliaments. It will call for imagination and resolution. We can continue to offer both. We shall continue to advance with a sense of purpose and with a cogent set of principles and policies that command respect at home and abroad. I share the sense of hope of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. No one can sensibly question the improvement in Britain's standing in the world. We have obviously been on the right track. We face the task ahead with undiminished energy and enthusiasm.

Viscount Long

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(viscount Long.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.