Lords Sitting of 6 June 1990

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

Lord Cavendish of Furness
Richard Hugh Cavendish, Esquire, having been created Baron Cavendish of Furness, of Cartmel in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mowbray and Stourton and the Lord Denman.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham
Richard Gordon Holme, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Holme of Cheltenham, of Cheltenham in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Scarman and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.

Exchange Rate Mechanism
2.57 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent ministerial speeches, the United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism within the next 12 months.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government remains unchanged. The United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism when the Madrid conditions have been met.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that during the second and third weeks of May speeches made by the Prime Minister at the Scottish Conservative Party conference and subsequently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were reported by newspapers such as the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and The Sunday Times as representing a major shift in British attitude towards early membership of the ERM? Is he further aware that as a result of those speeches and of those reports there was a substantial uplift in stock market values? In those circumstances does he not consider it right that this House should be taken a little more into the Government's confidence?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord reads into those articles in the press what he wishes to read. My replies on this subject yesterday and today make the Government's position absolutely clear.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House at what level of inflation he
1368
considers it would be apposite for the Government to enter the ERM?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I answer that question I am sure the whole House would like to join me in wishing my noble friend a very, very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lord, the key point regarding ERM entry is not a reduction of the United Kingdom inflation rate in itself; it is that our inflation rate should be on a downward trend and a little closer to that of our European partners on a comparable basis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the attempt by Mr. Lawson to enter the ERM by the back door has resulted in the disaster of record high interest rates and a record balance of payments problem, would there be any change and would there be any improvement if the Government now sought to enter the ERM through the front door?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note that the noble Lord continues to adopt a different view from noble Lords on his Front Bench. I would not draw the same conclusion from the first part of the noble Lord's question as he did; therefore he asks a purely hypothetical question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend urge his colleagues in the Government to resist the elbow jogging tactics of those who seem obsessed with moving to European federation at almost any cost? When joining the ERM is clearly in the best interests of the United Kingdom as well as of Europe, it may be considered, but it would not serve British interests to do so before that time. The Government have no mandate either from the 1979 election or from any subsequent election to do anything less than that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend's first question is separate from the Question on the Order Paper. With regard to his second question, my noble friend is absolutely right. We shall join the ERM when it is right for the United Kingdom to do so.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are not the Government expecting inflation now to turn down? The Minister said that we shall join when inflation is on the way down. Has not the time come for that, or do the Government expect it still to go up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question of inflation is another matter. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on that subject I shall be pleased to answer it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in his first Answer he was slightly inaccurate in saying that the position of the Government had not changed? Is he aware that the position of the Government is rapidly deteriorating

1369
and has deteriorated since that time? Will he give some assurance that small and medium-sized businesses, which are at the moment paying between 17 per cent. and 18 per cent. for bank facilities, will speedily be relieved and that we shall not enter the exchange rate monetary system until the matter has been redressed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I entirely disagree with the noble Lord's assertion that the Government's position has deteriorated; I think that the position of the Government is continuing to improve healthily. Regarding his second point, as the noble Lord will know, we are already members of the EMS. We are talking about whether we should become members of the ERM. That decision will be taken. The principles have been agreed, the terms have been set out and the decision will be taken when it is right for the UK to do so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has just said completely contradicts what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said 10 days ago when he had the courage to state that we were in for a tough time: unemployment may rise and even inflation may rise a little more? Who are we to believe—the noble Earl or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no contradiction between what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said and what I have said today. The noble Lord has sought to widen the Question to such matters as unemployment.

The Recruitment Industry
3.4 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering any national or EC legislation which would directly affect the search, selection and recruitment industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the current Employment Bill will affect the recruitment industry. No other national legislation and no EC proposals directly relevant to the recruitment industry are under consideration by the Government at present.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a further question. In so doing I should declare an interest as I am president of the Association of Search and Selection Consultants. Can he say who Her Majesty's Government have consulted in the past upon such matters and who they intend to consult in the future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we consult a variety of organisations involved in the search, selection and recruitment industry. We shall continue to do so when it is required.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the Government give priority to the considerations raised in the noble Lord's Question, will the Minister please give some attention to the whole question of training in this country? Can he confirm that he has read the article that appears in today's edition of the Guardian which states that only 38 per cent. of the British labour force are properly trained as against 80 per cent. in France and that we are at the bottom of the training league?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure whether that issue has anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the percentage of workers trained under the Labour Government was even worse than the percentage trained under the Conservative Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this Question is about employment agencies; it has nothing to do with training. That is another question, which I am keen to answer but I cannot do so at this moment.

NHS: Funding from Increased Taxation
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether public opinion would support an increase in personal taxation in order to improve the facilities of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government's successful economic policies, including our reform of the tax system, have enabled us to increase spending on the National Health Service by 44 per cent. in real terms since 1978-79, leading to the provision of more and better services generally. As an example, we are proud of our success in reducing the number of infant deaths. Infant mortality rates, a key indication of the nation's health, are currently lower than in any previous year.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, does she realise that the ever-rising costs of new technologies, equipment and so on mean that perhaps we should think about providing an 8 per cent. increase in real terms every year? Does she agree that, if the funds are not available directly, it would be as well to find out in this democracy whether the public would be prepared to have increased taxes of some form in order to keep the National Health Service running smoothly?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are fully aware of increasing expectations in terms of the National Health Service and, indeed, the increased costs which new technology brings to it. Our aim is to achieve the best possible balance between spending for general basic services, which historically the

1371
National Health Service was created to provide, and hi-tech treatments. Our system of supra-regional services has played an important part in this process.
As I have said, we have ensured that the National Health Service has received a steady increase in real resources over the past 10 years. This, coupled with the measures that we have taken to improve efficiency and obtaining good value for money, has meant that the service has been able to keep pace with the demands of demography and medical advance. We intend that that process should continue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, was it not our experience under Labour Governments that high and increasing taxation diminished the national product and therefore diminished the amount of wealth available for all these good purposes?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. As the past 11 years have shown, cutting tax rates is not incompatible with spending more on the National Health Service. The Government's economic policies have led to growth, enabling more money to be spent to improve services. While the standard rate of income tax has fallen from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent., real national health spending has, as I said, grown by 44 per cent. It has increased both as a proportion of GDP and of public expenditure.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister's reply to the main Question referred to the decrease in the infant mortality rate. However, is she aware that in the central area of Manchester and also in other cities the number of deaths of children at birth and below the age of one year is still more than twice the national average, with very little sign of improvement? When will the Government do something about the situation by providing extra resources in this areas for that purpose?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's particular pleading in this matter. In general, we are continuing the good trend by the formation of a specialist group to investigate still births and infant deaths; by a critical review of research into cot deaths by the Medical Research Council; and by taking action to improve the capacity of the NHS to undertake post-mortems following infant deaths. We hope that the picture will continue to improve throughout the country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if there is the vast volume of people eager for higher personal taxation, as postulated in the original Question, I can give them a nice list of reputable medical charities which they can support to great public advantage by putting their hands into their pockets?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his suggestion. I should like to confirm once again that it is the Government's low tax policies which have led to economic growth thus enabling the provision of better services.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her answer is a trifle bizarre? Is she aware that the ratio of taxation to incomes has been higher throughout the Government's period of office than it ever was under the previous Labour Government? If it is true—it is in terms of the Government's published figures—that more seems to be spent on health at present than 10 years ago, how does she account for the acute crisis and lack of beds in all the major London teaching hospitals which, apart from anything else, place at risk the lives of Members of your Lordships' House every day of the week?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Question refers to personal taxation. I also point out that after social security health is the second biggest item in the Government's spending programme. The figures prove that there is a greater throughput in terms of hospital treatment; so while people may not be spending nights in beds, they are being treated in hospitals. There are more doctors and nurses, and more patients being treated, than ever before.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the original Question referred to public opinion as to where the burden should be borne? If increased expenditure on the NHS is required—everyone seems to believe that that is true—have not public opinion polls over the past three years indicated a preference that that expenditure should be borne by general taxation? Will she inform her noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, in addition to income tax, taxation includes value added tax which was doubled by the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we would be wise to be wary of polls showing that people are happy to pay more tax. In any case, as I have already said, the Government are spending more and improving services. Due to our successful economic policies, the GDP has increased and the NHS share of the GDP has increased.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent is the problem one of a lack of funding or, alternatively, a lack of proper budgeting by each hospital or board so that they run out of money too early in the year? Secondly, will my noble friend confirm that the amount of money saved each year by the paying off of the national debt is equivalent to running about 170 hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall have to check on the last point raised by my noble friend. I have already pointed out that there is no question of there being a lack of funds. There has been increased funding. What is important is to achieve the proper management of that funding. All the measures that the Government have taken, and are taking, are intended to create a more efficient service and to improve the quality of clinical care and the delivery of care.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that however much one puts into the NHS it is never

1373
enough because the demands will always be there? With the new technology and all that flows from it, the service will get bigger and bigger and brighter and brighter, and more money will be spent on it by government. So what are we all talking about?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord is right as he so often is. We hope that demand will always outstrip what we can do.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the Minister's undertaking to investigate the matter, if she finds that it is possible to fund 100 and something hospitals by not reducing the national debt, perhaps the Government might consider funding some new hospitals. Would that not be a much better idea?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are funding, and have funded, new hospitals.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while my noble friend is carrying out that investigation she might discover how many hospitals could be built out of the interest being saved from not having to fund the national debt.
Lord Molloy: My Lord, is the Minister aware that the majority of our royal colleges probably know more about the NHS than any of us; that many price increases have been met to a degree by the Government but that other aspects of the NHS are being neglected; that schemes have been introduced which are deleterious to the NHS; and that we are arriving at the worst possible world? The NHS is costing us more, and it is not nearly as efficient as it was 10 years ago.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the increased costs and demands of the NHS. Our reforms are intended to improve that service, to make it more efficient and to improve its quality.

Electoral Rights: Overseas Residents
3.16 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether children who emigrated to Canada with their parents and have now reached the age of 18 years are eligible to vote in United Kingdom elections.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, British citizens aged 18 or over who left the United Kingdom before they were old enough to register as electors are now able to do so and to vote at parliamentary and European parliamentary elections here provided that they left less than 20 years ago. A parent or guardian must have been included on the electoral register here at or about the time the young person went abroad.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. What steps are being taken by the Government to inform those people and the
1374
many thousands of others in similar circumstances in other countries of their new status? How will they be registered? How will their votes be cast? What will be the estimated cost of the whole exercise?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, to answer some of the noble Lord's questions, a publicity campaign is being waged with a total budget of £760,000, of which some £45,000 will be spent in Canada. The noble Lord asked how overseas electors will register. They can fill in and return an application form to the electoral registration officer for the area where they were last registered or where their parents or guardian were last registered. The forms and explanatory leaflets are available from diplomatic and consular posts. They should be completed by 10th October in any year. Overseas electors will vote in the constituency in which they were last registered or where their parents or guardians were last registered. They would vote by proxy.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain how young people who were below the age of 18 when they left this country could have been on an electoral register? Secondly, has he an estimate of how many young people are involved? For how many years can they go on voting? Can they continue voting in this country for the rest of their lives?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I sought to make it clear that young people who had emigrated with their parents or guardians would register where their parents or guardians had been registered. I believe that I explained that the time limit was 20 years. It is not without limit of time.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, how many are involved?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the estimate is that there are some 2 million to 3 million overseas electors. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness an estimate of the number of young people included in that figure.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply as formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would conform with the spirit of these debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes limit as recommended by the Procedure Committee.

Hasmonean High School Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Debate, 13th June
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for 13th June shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2i hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Social Security Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 16,

Schedule 1,

Clause 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18 and 19,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 20 to 22,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 23 to 26,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 27 and 28,

Schedule 6.

— (Lord Henley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Political and Monetary Union
3.21 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the case for Her Majesty's Government taking an active role in seeking to define a more precise shape for future European political and monetary union; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a number of debates over the past two years I have sought to indict the Government for their persistent semi-detachment and the consequent ineffectiveness of their European posture. Today I thought I should try a somewhat different approach for three reasons: first, to try to avoid the boredom of repetition; secondly, because there are some fairly faint signs of an improvement in the Government's attitude and therefore encouragement may be in order; and thirdly, because it is desirable to try to understand why British governments so persistently and, I believe, damagingly march out of step with Europe, rather than merely abuse or mock them for doing so.
The persistence of this misjudgment, as I see it, has been remarkable and bipartisan. It was a Labour Government of which I was a fervid supporter at the time that kept us out of the Coal and Steel Community. I voted—as I now see, wrongly—in the crucial 1950 Division, so I claim no early impeccability of judgment and wisdom. It was said at the time that the Durham miners would not stand for it. That was rather dangerous nonsense. It is the same as Mrs. Thatcher last summer over-estimating the appeal of populist nationalism in her approach to the European Parliament elections of 1989.
In my view, the trouble in our relations with Europe has been much less with the British public than with the British leaders. When a lead was given, as at the time of the 1975 referendum, the public responded perfectly well. However, British leaders with few exceptions have steadily got it wrong. The Attlee Government kept us out of the Coal and Steel Community; the Eden Government kept us out of the Economic Community. And the first years of the Macmillan Government landed us with the false alternative of EFTA which became a predictable embarrassment within a year.
Jumping forward 20 years, the Government of my noble friend Lord Gallaghan of Cardiff kept us out of initial full membership of the European monetary system in contrast with every one of the other nine members of which the Community was then composed. The explanation for this remarkable consistency lies more in persistent misunderstanding than in a lack of British goodwill towards the Community. The result, I believe, is equally unfortunate.
In what does the misunderstanding lie? There are three aspects. First, there is exaggerated and unnecessary fear of a formal and flattening federalism that would make Europe the analogue of the United States, and Britain merely the equivalent of a Pennsylvania or an Illinois within it. I do not believe for one moment that that will happen; nor that it needs the war dances of British nationalists from Mr. Tebbit to Mr. Benn to prevent it. It will not happen because Europeans in Europe will always be very different from the Europeans who crossed the Atlantic and made the United States of America. They have not been through the melting pot. They have not turned their backs on their own countries.
It will not happen because none of the leaders of Europe—not President Mitterrand, nor Chancellor Kohl, nor Senor Gonzalez—has any intention of ceasing to be a Frenchman a German or a Spaniard. They have no more intention of doing that than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has of ceasing to be an Englishman.
The leaders want to carry on an increasing number of important activities together, certainly, with some element of federalism in the methods. But that is different from changing what I call the psychological polity. I do not believe that, in the year 2000 or in the following decades, when a Frenchman in Tokyo is asked what he is, he will say, "I'm a European" in the way that a New Yorker or even a Texan would say, "I'm an American" in similar circumstances. I do not believe that that will change much over subsequent decades. However by harbouring rather

1377
phantasmagoric fears, we merely reduce our influence on further developments.
Secondly, in the country we have always found it difficult to grasp the central paradox that although the European Community, has largely used economic means, it is and always has been about a political end: the security of the Continent and the regaining so far as possible of the influence in the world that we all in Europe so wantonly threw away in two European civil wars.
The Government have sometimes sounded as though Europe ought to be almost exclusively about moving packages freely across frontiers and with any wider political purposes a dangerous excrescence. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, when on the Front Bench opposite, was a particularly lucid exponent of that point of view. It sounds simple and straightforward, but it is the most terrible snare. First, it is self-defeating, for without the lubricant of a little idealism and without the sense of direction given by a political purpose, we would never get 12 countries to make the give-and-take concessions on a variety of national interests without which 1992 could never be a reality.
It is an attitude terribly out of touch with their level and momentum of current events. When, for example, Civic Forum in Czechoslovakia campaigns—as it does—on the basis of a reintegration of that country into Europe, it is not the thought of lorries travelling freely across frontiers that moves it. In the foreseeable competitive state that would be a considerable imposition, a price that could only be paid in order to achieve greater and wider benefits. It is very desirable that packages should cross frontiers freely. However, Europe is about much more than that. If we try to tell the Community to stick to a narrow trade line we shall be Philistine, isolated and ineffective. Yet we need not be any of those three things.
That leads me to what in my view is the third misunderstanding. The Continental intellectual tradition is undoubtedly to think more in terms of general declarations of intent and direction than our own, which is more empirical and more a matter of nudging one's way forward, determining each step only after the previous one has been taken. There is something to be said both for and against both those approaches. The test of European statesmanship, and the only way to be an effective European leader, is to be able to reconcile them.
There is sometimes a logical gap between the end and the means of ringing European declarations. The words used sometimes have a sharper meaning for British ears than for the Continental drafters. The sensible reaction is not to denounce the declarations of aim as either meaningless humbug or, more contradictorily, as imprisoning and unacceptable commitments, but to profit from the vagueness if it be there and make oneself central to the enterprise and play a major role in shaping the highly important modalities.
To do that, however, one has to want the enterprise to succeed and make other people think that one wants the enterprise to succeed. There is certainly room for dispute about the route. I do not necessarily
1378
believe that every word of the Delors plan is perfect. One would have to be a very charitable person to believe that every word of one's successor in any job was perfect and engraved on tablets of stone and could not possibly be allowed to go cheap. There is room for a little diversion. Chesterton wrote of:
"The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head". If one is to be anywhere near the driving seat on such an expedition one has to look as though one wants to get to Birmingham at the end of the day and not merely end up bogged down in Eastbourne.
In my view that was the trouble with our EMU paper. It came out of the most unpromising remit which was given to the Treasury after last year's Madrid European summit to produce an alternative to the Delors route to monetary union which had as little as possible to do with either union or a common money. It set a formidable intellectual task even for the most distinguished brains in the Treasury. As a result we got the not very exciting proposal for alternative currencies, which failed to engage either of the major practical disadvantages of the existing position. Those are, first, uncertainty as to what one will receive in one's own currency when a trade deal has been carried out and, secondly, the enormous exchange rate costs involved trying to operate a single integrated market with 11 different currencies. As a result the British paper has been received with all the enthusiasm of a lead balloon.
To do better in the future on monetary union and on political unity we must be prepared to show much more that we really want to get to Birmingham, or at least fairly near to it, to Rugby let us say.
Surely in our political approach we should give up some of our apparently deep-seated anti-European Parliament prejudice. There is nothing which has disappointed our European partners more than the fact that we have contributed so little to the European Parliament. They thought that with our great parliamentary tradition we would have a very special contribution to make. They have found that we are mostly concerned with finding out what it is doing and telling it to stop. It is not possible to envisage any significant advance which keeps us remotely in step with the leaders of Europe unless there are substantial powers for the Parliament. Otherwise, to use the catchphrase, the democratic deficit will grow unacceptably.
Nor, I hope, will we be tempted to make the tumultuous events in Eastern Europe an excuse for delay. The majority of the other 11 members of the Community do not want that. Nor do the emergent Eastern European countries themselves, to which the Community can be and is to some extent a beacon that gives them some sense of direction. It is a very fragile world in which we now live as regards Eastern Europe and Russia itself.
I do not know Eastern Europe very well When I was President of the Commission it was terra incognita; I did not go there. They did not recognise us and we did not recognise them. However, in the past few weeks I have been once to Bucharest and once to Czechoslovakia. One is bound to be struck by the tremendous sense of hope but also the fragility of the position when beyond there are such

1379
extraordinary shadows over the future of the Soviet Union.
I was recently engaged in a television discussion in America to celebrate the anniversary of a university with Henry Kissinger and Fyodor Burlatzky, who is a well known Soviet spokesman. Fyodor Burlatzky riveted us all when, asked what he thought was the future of the Soviet Union as a political entity, he said that it will become an alliance. After consultation with his interpreter he said, "What I mean is something rather like the Commonwealth". I asked him whether he really meant the British Commonwealth, which is one of the loosest organisations in the world. He said "Yes, that's right". If there is a possibility of the Soviet Union dissolving its sinews to the extent of moving even halfway to becoming a commonwealth, and given the extremely fragile position throughout the Eastern European countries, it is a most extraordinary time of opportunity. It is also a time of immense dangers.
The German question also has to be faced. I believe that many fears about Germany are exaggerated. The salient fact of the past 40 years has been that Germany has not exercised the political muscle which its economic strength entitles it to use. That has been the imbalance in the European Community. Both France and ourselves, in our differing ways, have tried to exercise a political power which our economies could not sustain. Germany, by contrast, has been pushing political power away over those four decades. The position may necessarily change, but it would have to be a very great change before Germany could be accused of throwing its weight about. Nonetheless, there are question marks over the future of that pivotal country in the centre of Europe, which now again, for the first time for many years, means the centre of the world.
The old world of only a few years ago is changing with remarkable speed. There seemed to be an unattractive and oppressive but considerable solidity in the whole of the eastern half of the Continent. In the Cold War situation we could compensate to some extent for our weakness in the European Community by being President Reagan's favourite cis-Atlantic ally. That period has already slipped far behind us. Unless the Government can play a more effective hand in Europe from the intergovernmental conference at the end of this year onwards, I fear that Britain will be playing a very weak hand in a world which is in a greater state of flux than anything we have known for half a century. I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for tabling today's debate on European political and monetary union. Few members of the House bring to this important subject the wealth of direct experience of the European Community and life-long commitment to its development which marked the noble Lord's speech at the beginning of the debate.
1380
I welcome today's debate for three particular reasons. I welcome it, first, because of its timeliness and because of the manifest importance of the subjects that it raises. As we stand at a crossroads in European history, the European Community is central to our vision of our continent's future stability and prosperity. A community like ours cannot remain static. It must move forward. At the end of this year we are already committed to beginning an inter-governmental conference on the question of economic and monetary union. The European Council in Dublin in less than three weeks' time will decide whether to convene a parallel conference on the subject of political union. Those discussions will shape the Community for the years ahead.
Secondly, I welcome the debate because the issues that it raises touch directly the interests of this House and this Parliament. The United Kingdom wants a strong Community and strong Community law, but we also want to maintain our national traditions and distinctive way of life. By that I do not mean just our cultural and social traditions—Shakespeare, cricket or pints of beer. I mean also our political traditions and the maintenance of strong political traditions requires them to be based on the continuing exercise of real responsibility. The balance between national governments and parliaments and central European institutions is of vital interest to your Lordships. The Government are eager to hear and consider carefully your views in preparation for the debates on political and monetary union on which the Community is now embarked.
Thirdly, I welcome the debate because, although you might not immediately believe it having just heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the Government can agree unequivocally with every single word in his Motion. I know that he did not intend it that way, but his Motion describes with uncanny precision the policy that the Government have adopted on those important issues.
Let me begin with the subject of political union or, as some of our Community colleagues call it, the political dimension of the Community. We are of course committed to those solemn and famous words at the beginning of the Treaty of Rome:
"to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
The Single European Act, which was negotiated in 1985 and came into force less than three years ago, reaffirmed the commitment
"to transform relations as a whole among [member] states into a European union"
and introduced a series of major institutional changes which, together with the accession of Spain and Portugal, have invigorated the Community in recent years.
The changes brought in by the Single European Act included a timetable for completion of the internal market; the inclusion in the treaties of areas of activity such as research and the environment; a new co-operation procedure involving the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament; and the formalisation, on a treaty basis, of European political co-operation.

1381
We believe that the Community institutions have responded well to those significant changes. The 1992 programme in particular has transformed the Community and given it the forward-looking, open and liberal credentials which have acted as a pole of attraction for the countries of Eastern Europe and consolidated the Community's authority and credibility in its relations with major trading partners elsewhere.
I am sure that it is the very confidence which the 1992 programme has given the Community, combined with a feeling on the part of some of our partners that the Community needed to push forward internally in response to events in Central and Eastern Europe, that has stirred the current interest in further institutional change. The special European Council in Dublin on 28th April therefore asked Foreign Ministers to analyse ideas on political union and report back to the European Council at the end of June, with a view to a decision then on the holding of an inter-governmental conference. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear at the April summit and as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has confirmed in a series of speeches in the United Kingdom and other member states, there are three basic strands to British policy on the political dimension.
First, we have made clear that starting new Community discussions on institutional reform should not weaken our resolve to complete successfully the major tasks on which the Community is already embarked in 1990. I have in mind in particular the establishment of new relationships with Eastern Europe; the development of dialogue with the EFTA countries; concluding the GATT Uruguay Round; working out arrangements for the integration into the Community of East Germany; pushing ahead with the 1992 programme itself; and, finally, preparing the conference on economic and monetary union. We have made the point—and I do not think that any of our partners has dissented—that success in those challenges will itself strengthen the Community. Grave damage would be done to our internal coherence and external credibility were we to fail to carry through our commitments in those six vital areas of work.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear at the Dublin summit in April that there was a need to analyse more thoroughly what political union should cover before we proceeded further. That is why the words chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, are so clever. The Government have made clear that Community discussion should first indicate those things which political union does not mean, such as giving up our separate heads of state, our national parliaments, our legal or electoral systems, or our defence arrangements through NATO. Nor should political union mean the emasculation of the Council of Ministers as the Community's main decision-making body. Again, those points are widely accepted elsewhere in the Community.
We have therefore sought to bring political union down from the clouds in which it was shrouded before 28th April. We do not see that simply as the usual British campaign for pragmatism and good
1382
sense, although those qualities should not be undervalued in Community debate, but as necessary in order to reassure public opinion and build consensus about what this debate means. Reassurance is also relevant to the third strand of British policy; namely, that the debate on political union should not be conducted in an introspective vacuum. It should take full account of the wider Europe beyond the Community negotiating table. The institutions that we create today should not be throw-away paper models. They must last. But if they are built to last, they must take into account the fact that the Community is not static, is moving on and must remain open to the other countries of Europe. That means that the Community's institutions of today and tomorrow must take into account the possibility of a larger Community in the Europe of the 21st century.
It is those principles which underlie the series of ideas which the Government have floated in recent weeks on possible institutional change. I shall elaborate more fully on those ideas later in the debate, but let me now pick up the more important strands in our thinking.
First, in keeping with our views on the importance of the diversity of national traditions, we have advocated the need to improve democratic accountability in the Community. There are several ways to do that maintaining or enhancing the accountability of Ministers in the Council to their national parliaments; stronger links between national parliaments and the European Parliament; giving the European Parliament a greater role in examining the way in which the Community's funds are spent and its decisions carried out.
Improving the financial accountability of the Commission to the European Parliament would make a substantial contribution to the Community's efficiency and effectiveness. We have also suggested that, in that regard, greater attention needs to be given to improving implementation and enforcement of agreed EC legislation, perhaps by giving the European Court of Justice and the Commission stronger powers of enforcement.
We also believe that there is scope for improving the Community's effectiveness in the area of political co-operation and foreign policy co-ordination. Finally, we must take a long, hard look at the principle of subsidiarity.
Discussion in the Community—for example among Foreign Ministers at their informal meeting in Ireland last month—has revealed a fair measure of support for the basic principles which the United Kingdom has advocated and interest in the specific positive proposals which we have floated. It would be wrong to conceal the fact that there are a number of other ideas for institutional change in circulation at present which do not appeal to the Government. But we are satisfied that the debate is now basically on the right track, concentrating on how to make the Community institutions work better, and working up practical ideas for achieving that, rather than purporting to create a blueprint for a brave new world of centralised control which none of us wants to enter. The Government are committed to maintaining this open, active and constructive

1383
approach in the continuing debate on political union before and after this month's European Council in Dublin.
On economic and monetary union too the UK has been among the most vigorous participants in the debate. We are of course committed, as are all member states, to move progressively towards economic and monetary union. We all want to achieve much closer economic integration, with higher living standards and more flexible, market-orientated economies. Closer monetary integration offers the prospect of price and currency stability, cheaper financial transactions and the opportunity for all Community citizens and businesses to enjoy free and equal access to financial instruments and services.
The question is how to achieve those objectives. The Delors Report put forward one model, based on centrally determined moves first to locked currencies and then to a single currency and single monetary policy administered by a single, independent European central bank, backed by an enlarged redistributive EC Budget and binding controls on national budget deficits. The Government do not accept that model, which would imply a massive transfer of sovereignty over fiscal and monetary policy away from national parliaments and might well fail to deliver the benefits we all seek. This view has been endorsed in debates both in this House and in another place last November. The Government put forward an alternative, market-based approach in their paper, An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union. That paper has made an important contribution to the debate in Europe.
Our approach is practical; our starting point the importance of the single market. Completion of the single market programme will mean genuinely free movement of people, goods and services throughout the Community. It will over time lead to increasing convergence of the economic performance of member states, and it will lead to greater stability in prices and exchange rates. Creating the single market is therefore central to the first stage of economic and monetary union, which will begin in July.
To complete Stage 1, we must also build on the competitive forces released by the single market; we must reduce state aids for industry; and we must create the freest possible climate for financial transactions across the Community. All Community currencies must also participate in the exchange rate mechanism on the same terms. The Government have confirmed their intention to join as soon as our well-known conditions are met.
As I have already said, heads of government have agreed to hold an inter-governmental conference in December to consider further steps towards economic and monetary union. The UK Government have said that we shall play a full part in that conference, and we have been participating constructively in preparations for it. Moreover, we have been winning converts along the way. There is now considerable agreement about the way in which economic arrangements should develop beyond Stage 1. Our Community partners now agree that
1384
we should build on the arrangements for voluntary co-ordination and surveillance of member states' economic policies which are already in place. They agree with us that there should be no monetary financing of budget deficits and that member states should not bail each other out in times of difficulty. Many member states have come round to our view that there should not be rules limiting the size for national budget deficits, and the Commission has now concluded that they are "economically unjustified".
There is less agreement on the monetary side. The UK has three fundamental concerns about the Delors Report's approach. First, we believe that ultimate control of monetary policy must lie with elected national governments and not with an independent and unaccountable Community central bank. Governments must continue to be accountable to their own electorates for their conduct of monetary affairs.
Secondly, we believe that monetary policy set out by a central Community body would deliver an average inflation performance, not the best. However independent that body, there would be a tendency to compromise. The pressure of national democratic institutions will continue to provide the sharpest incentive for governments to keep prices stable. That is why we believe that, beyond Stage I of EMU, there should continue to be competition between national monetary policies, while the use of the ecu should also be encouraged.
Thirdly, we do not believe, as the Delors Report suggested, that EMU should mean more budgetary support for poorer regions. The Community should not move ahead on the monetary side until all regions are strong enough to take part. A bigger budget, redistributing resources across the Community, would be no substitute for adequate prior convergence of economic performance, not least because history shows that artificial resource allocation run by bureaucrats works much less effectively than natural resource allocation working through markets.
We shall continue to explain our approach and to put forward our own ideas in the coming months as the inter-governmental conference approaches.
I hope that I have succeeded in demonstrating that the Government are indeed taking an active role in seeking to define the Community's future development. But your Lordships should not take my word for it. All that noble Lords need to do is scan the comment columns of the Community's newspapers to see that our constructive approach is well appreciated elsewhere in the country. Our friends in Europe and around the world want us to play an active role because they recognise that we have a distinctive contribution to make to shaping the Europe of the 21st century.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, I wonder whether he will allow me to intervene. In his comments today, in the Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's observations on the operation of the Single European Act and on many other occasions the Government have declined to make any

1385
observations whatsoever about those twin pillars of the Single European Act; namely, social policy and environmental policy. Why is it that the Government omit all reference to those matters in their response?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has his name down to speak later in the debate and I shall respond at the end. If he wishes to make those points in his speech I shall certainly take them into account. In the meantime I have slightly overrun the time allowed to me so I shall conclude.
We do not intend to miss that opportunity and I shall be listening intently to your Lordships' remarks, which will help the Government to prepare fully and imaginatively for the discussions ahead.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for tabling this important and timely Motion and also for the comprehensive speech in which he set the scene for our debate. The words of his Motion are reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated that the Government agree with it. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asks the Government to be more active in seeking to define a more precise shape for future political and monetary union. However, Parliament, and not only Parliament but the people of this country, want to know much more about the Government's policy on these crucial issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as he always does, made an agreeable speech, but he has not added greatly to the fund of our knowledge on these matters. We move from Paris to Dublin and on to Rome later this year, giving the impression that on many issues we are making policy as we go along. Of course we know that there are differences of view in the Government and in the Cabinet, but at some stage we are entitled to expect the Government to produce a clear foreign policy which is pursued with consistency and not, as the Economist stated recently, " a government scrambling to adapt to events set in train by others."
I think we all agree that the Rome summit will be the most important Community meeting since the Treaty of Rome was signed, if political union is added to the agenda. The Community itself will be in the melting pot. The treaty will be up for amendment and the issues in this debate will be at the top of the agenda.
The Minister made some general observations on the main topics of interest but we have a duty to press the Government to define more precisely their economic and political objectives so that Britain knows where it stands at this important time. For example, there has been a great deal of argument and uncertainty on the economic side and about when we should join the exchange rate mechanism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England have said that Britain should be ready to join as soon as the Government can bring inflation under control. Then the rumour has spread that Britain may join rather sooner than expected; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said at Question Time today, the markets have reacted excitedly.
1386
Following Mr. John Major's remarks on 17th May hinting that there would be an early entry into the ERM, noble Lords will recall that markets soared—the sharpest surge in share prices for nearly three years. Mr. Major said:
"Anybody who thinks we are playing with this as a gesture is wrong".
We then hear contrary platitudes from the Treasury Benches in both Houses.
We understand the difficulties, but we also believe that we should negotiate entry into the ERM at the earliest opportunity although we know that it will not cure our economic problems overnight—far from it. But in the longer term it could provide us with the stability, terms of investment and steady growth that this country so badly needs. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel will deal with that aspect of the Motion when he winds up on this side of the House.
But if the road to economic union is strewn with difficulties, they are not insuperable, whereas the way to political union is far harder to negotiate. EMS, ERM and all the implications of economic union have been on the Community drawing board for a long time, and although political objectives have been discussed from time to time, political union has only very recently been under serious discussion. As we know, the recent initiative has been taken by Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand. We must consider very carefully in this debate the relevant extract from the communique of the Dublin Summit of 30th April. It states:
"The European Council discussed the proposal of President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl on political union and the paper submitted by the Belgian Government on the same subject. In this context the European Council confirmed its commitment to political union and decided on the following steps:
A detailed examination will be put in hand forthwith on the need for possible treaty changes with the aim of strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the union, enabling the Community and its institutions to respond efficiently and effectively to the demands of the new situation and assuring unity and coherence in the Community's international action.
Foreign Ministers will undertake this examinalion and analyse and prepare proposals to be discussed at the European Council in June with a view to a decision on the holding of a second inter-governmental conference to work in parallel with the conference on Economic and Monetary Union with a view to ratification by member states in the same time frame."
That is a crucially important communique.
We are on the threshold of the Council meeting which will decide whether to recommend that political union should be on the agenda for Rome. Will the Government support that? The Minister did not make it clear in his speech.
The implications of this are profound, more so I think, than those on the economy, mainly because of our attachment to our political institutions which are more deeply rooted than those of other countries in the Community. We want the Community to succeed. I want it to be democratic and I want Britain to be a part of it. But I do not want this Parliament to be dismantled or converted into a parish council. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, gave some welcome assurances on that in his opening remarks.
That of course is the sovereignty argument, and the debate is fundamentally about sovereignty and how much more power the Government are

1387
proposing and planning to convey to the Community. We shall need to know its extent and in which authority or authorities it will be invested. I am quite sure that the House will agree that our chief concern is accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to the European Parliament when he spoke. There is also the Council of Ministers and the Commission. I believe that there is a genuine effort at each of those levels to operate the structure efficiently. But there is also a feeling that accountability is again not as strong as it should be. I realise that some thought has been given to this. There are the Belgian proposals, to which I have referred, the Martin Report and of course the Franco-German proposals. Those will now be followed by the Foreign Ministers' report to the Council later this month. But there is a very long way to go before we can say that a formula for political union can be presented to the 12 governments.
The Belgian aide-memoire sets out a reasonable basis for future study. Let me summarise it. The proposals aim to strengthen the existing institutional structure to make it more efficient; to increase the democratic input in this structure by strengthening the Parliament and developing the Community's social dimension; and finally to increase the convergence between political co-operation and Community policy, policy towards Central and Eastern Europe providing the first opportunity for doing so.
Most of us can sympathise with a good deal if not all of that, but we also realise that it is only the beginning of an immensely complex process. Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand have taken a lead in this initiative but we shall have to wait and see how their general words of welcome translate into practical detail. I have respect for both leaders, and I am sure that they know that a United States of Europe lies far beyond the horizon.
The full implications have not been studied seriously, in my submission. I noted that President Mitterrand said that there was no question of suppressing the national identities. It is indeed hard to contemplate a situation where one would be allowed to forget the French identity. Of course the European Parliament is focal in all these considerations. Should it be given more power, and if so, how much? Its present powers are negative; namely, the power to veto the Commission's Budget, to hold up legislation and to dismiss the Commission.
The Belgian proposals would give it the right to veto, alter and even rescind Community laws. They would also increase the power of the European Court so that compliance with its judgments would be mandatory and not voluntary as they are at present. It seems that there are significant reforms which would not radically undermine Community parliaments. But there must first be the most detailed study.
I am delighted therefore that the Select Committee of this House under the chairmanship of my noble
1388
friend Lady Serota has decided to set up an ad hoc sub-committee with the following terms of reference:
"To consider the implications for the United Kingdom and the European Community of proposals for economic and monetary union and for political union, with special reference to the institutional changes which might be involved".
The reputation of the committee's reports is well known and we may be sure that its work will be valuable. As I have said before, there is a need for all-party support for any final proposal. It is not desirable that we should move far and fast in the direction of constitutional and political reform without seeking the support of all parties in this country.
We on this side believe that against the background of the great changes taking place in Europe the Community should be deeper and wider in its membership; that it should be a real community, really European and not just a single market.
Over the years the Community has gained powers from member parliaments. But unhappily that transfer of powers has not been accompanied by greater democratic accountability and scrutiny. We know from experience in this country that undemocratic agencies can accumulate powers unobtrusively—like a thief in the night. We do not like it when it happens here, but if it developed in Europe it could be very dangerous. Autocracy lives just round the corner from every one of us and it needs to be watched all the time.
I greatly look forward to hearing the speech of my noble friend Lord Richard. He has great experience in this area and was also our ambassador to the United Nations. These are interesting and historic times but they are also unpredictable times. We must make sure that we stick to our principles and safeguard our democratic institutions for the sake of the next generation.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I welcome the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It will lead to a timely and useful debate. I suggest that it is timely for two reasons. First, although the general issues posed by economic, political and monetary union are well known, the particular international context in which we examine the issues has changed profoundly in recent months. Secondly, between now and December, when the first inter-governmental conference will be held in Italy, the Government will no doubt be examining the issues afresh. Therefore, this is an appropriate moment for your Lordships to consider them.
Later in the year, and I hope before the inter-governmental conference is held, the sub-committee, referred to by the leader of the Opposition and presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will have issued its report. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will have something to say about that. The debate provides a useful opportunity for us to consider the issues in a preliminary way.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, down his broad political road leading to Rugby and Birkenhead, but prefer to approach the subject from

1389
a different angle. I particularly invite your Lordships' attention to the relationship between what is happening inside the Community and the fundamental changes which are taking place elsewhere in the wider Europe. I also invite attention to the relationship between the super powers and their negotiations over disarmament and arms control.
Some noble Lords may ask whether it is right that at this moment the European Community should embark on further integration and take new steps in the direction of union, whatever that may mean, at a time when the possibility of a more general pacification between East and West has so suddenly come about. Should we not, it may be argued, stay our hand until the European Community has had an opportunity to explore more thoroughly the possibilities of co-operation with the countries of Eastern and Central Europe now that they are free to shape their destinies for the first time in a generation? Is there not, it may be asked, some potential conflict between the process of tightening and deepening upon which we are again embarking in Western Europe and the urgent need to broaden our collaboration with Eastern and Central Europe?
I do not see the question in that way. But I believe that, as these two areas of political action present themselves at the same moment, we need to be clear in our own minds about the relationship between them if we are to make the correct response in each case. In the case of the Community we should do well to reflect on the causes which lie behind this renewed impulse for integration and institutional advance. I suggest that one important cause is the positive result brought about by the changes introduced by the Single European Act. The greater use of majority voting in the Council of Ministers, and perhaps even more the knowledge that majority voting is available, has enabled the drive towards the fulfilment of the internal market to make worthwhile progress.
Your Lordships will recall that the programme was first launched by the Milan summit and was ably promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as the commissioner responsible. It is now widely believed within the Community that the changes produced by the Single European Act—which were at the time criticised for their apparent modesty—have, in effect, transformed the atmosphere within the Community. It is the opinion of many of our partners that the successsful creation of the internal market will, in turn, require the creation of stronger and more democratic institutions to oversee its proper functioning. That is what is intended by the much-used phrase, "the democratic deficit".
Allied to that belief is a widespread impression that, since the extension of its powers in the same Single European Act, the European Parliament has used those powers in a responsible manner. I am encouraged to see that that sentiment is evident in another place, judging from a recent report of its Select Committee on Procedure. The committee examines ways in which Members of the European Parliament might be associated with the scrutiny of
1390
EC legislation. That is a most encouraging development.
Another strand in the story, and part of the impetus for more integration, is the steady purpose of those who have always believed in institutional advance in the Community. It is not surprising to find that those who enthusiastically supported the Spinelli Draft Treaty are arguing their case again. Of course, the same objections will continue to apply to their more far-reaching ideas. But we are in a new situation and it would accord with our own national approach to examine these proposals—whether for economic and monetary union or political union—in a pragmatic and careful way. I was encouraged by the remarks in another place immediately after the Dublin summit, which suggested that that is what the Prime Minister intends.
Another reason has been advanced for the need to accelerate integration, with which I disagree. It is the suggestion that the reunification of Germany makes it imperative for the Community to hasten its own institutional advance so as to bind the united Germany ever more closely to Western Europe. I find that argument defective. It does less than justice to German motives and I believe that it misunderstands them. Most Germans regarded the division of their country during the past 45 years as an arbitrary and artificial act. They had long hoped that it would be corrected but believed that it would not occur for many years to come. But now that the opportunity to restore that unity has arisen in an unexpected way it is hardly surprising that the Germans should regard that as being their most urgent task. They are addressing it in the thorough, comprehensive and democratic way which we associate with the Federal Republic. The process is quite separate from the integration of the Community, in which the political parties of the Federal German Republic also have a sincere belief There is no conflict between those two German motives and, in my opinion, any attempt to set those two processes in some kind of Hobbesian balance is quite misconceived as well as being unnecessary.
I submit that we need to consider the effect of the events in Eastern Europe on the future of the European Community. The profound changes now apparent in the political geography of Europe will need to be taken into account by the architects of political union. For example, we should note that instead of a Community with four large member states of approximately equal size in terms of population, which we have at present, we shall in future have an entity in which one member state will be both more numerous and, by any measure, more powerful than any other.
We must note that the grouping of EFTA associates, which is so important to us in trade and so close to us in outlook, is seeking a more intimate form of collaboration with the Community. Now we have a wider group of nations in Eastern and Central Europe which seek our urgent and practical help and support, and some of those also aim at ultimate membership of the Community.
I mention those facts because the second inter-governmental conference which has been

1391
proposed will need to think very carefully about the identity of the future Community—identity in terms of geography (where does Europe end?) of political scope and of cultural homogeneity. It encourages me to read that the form of association now contemplated for East European states will be of a new type adapted for their particular needs. However, we must consider where that will lead and how it will relate to the membership of EFTA, which is already knocking on our door hoping for a new kind of partnership in the Community in the so-called "European economic space".
We shall want too to reflect on the range of competence with which the Community is charged. It was very interesting to note that, in the message sent by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl to the Irish President on the eve of the recent Dublin summit, they spoke of including on the agenda of the second inter-governmental conference the definition of a common foreign and security policy. That will be a cardinal point for those who wish to discuss political union.
While I would not wish to see the Community charged with the total conduct of foreign policy nor endowed with a formal defence competence (at least not at this stage), it is possible that we might want to add to the Community's responsibilities a wider remit to handle broad questions in the area of political security. That was done only to a limited extent in the Single European Act. In the changed circumstances, additional involvement by the Community in that area would provide a valuable element of cohesion and stability in Central Europe in years to come, without—and I emphasis this—trespassing on the territory of other organisations already in being. I can see considerable advantage in making that plain at the next revision of the treaty so as to avoid any doubt about the future role of the Community.
I do not propose to examine the particular issues arising on economic monetary union which have been fully explored in public. However, I suggest that noble Lords interested in this subject might find it helpful to read a recent communication from the Commission which was forwarded to the House by the Treasury in April. That sets out the arguments in favour of economic and monetary union in a clear and convincing manner. Of course, reasoning on this subject is not capable of proof, whether it is negative or positive. We cannot regard economics as so conclusive a science, if indeed it is one. However, I find the logic of the Commission's argument in favour of economic and monetary union coherent and convincing.
The paper also gives rise to the thought that, had the structured discussions proposed in that document about the economic policy of member states been in place some years ago, we might have been spared some of our past misfortunes in the area of economic and monetary policy. At least we cannot claim that our record in this field has been an unqualified success. I believe that the disciplines proposed now could well benefit us in the future. We should note that in the latest version of the Commission's proposals, only the procedures for the
1392
discussion of national economic policy and budget deficits would be binding.
The same comments may be made generally about our exchange rate policy. We must face the fact that our economy has not prospered by comparison with those of our European neighbours either under the Bretton Woods system or under the floating rate regime which has prevailed latterly. We should have a greater justification in opposing a return to fixed rates, this time on a quite different basis, if we could ourselves point to a more convincing record.
It is my hope that we can approach all these issues without preconceptions in the very important discussions which lie ahead in the coming months.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating this debate although he is not in his place at the moment. In his brief historical analysis of our membership of the Community, without making any contentious remarks, I should have been grateful if he had mentioned that it was Mr. Heath, a Conservative Prime Minister, who took us into the European Community.
Before making a few observations on this debate, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the opportunity to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The last time I heard him was in the European Parliament: he was a very distinguished commissioner at the time.
This will be a difficult debate. We all look at the position of Europe in rather a different way. Nevertheless, I believe I am right in saying that it is the first time that the House has been able to address the subject in a spirit of all-party unity. For the first time, I believe, it is in the manifesto of the Labour Party that it believes in the future of Britain within the European Community. I hope that I have phrased that correctly. Therefore, we can now approach the matter as one that is non-contentious between the parties and one on which we can go forward together. That is, after all, what the vast majority of people in Britain wish.
I make three preliminary remarks. As my noble friend the Minister said, the Prime Minister has set out the parameters within which she would regard political union. We in this country become very excited and taken up with what can be called Euro-jargon words. However, political union means something different to almost everybody. Let us be quite clear that the rhetoric that we hear from leading statesmen on the Continent is often quite distant from the political realities of which they are aware.
If you speak to members of any other national parliament, I assure noble Lords that they share the same sentiments as Members of our national Parliament. They do not wish to see political union in the form of a federation and the removal of their own powers. That is quite understandable.
It should be said that although so often in our press we see criticisms of the United Kingdom and the way it conducts itself on the Continent, it should be observed that over and over again it is the United Kingdom which takes the lead on so many issues

1393
which are of mutual interest to member states. I allude to my own past as chairman of the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament. I was very well aware that, time and time again, on very contentious and difficult issues it was the United Kingdom which sought to unlock the complex difficulties which arose between member states. Often, too, it was the United Kingdom which was on the side of the qualified majority vote in favour of a directive rather than on the side of one or two minority countries which abstained from voting. That is seldom recognised in the public eye. We tend to be condemned very unfairly in many instances. That does not mean that the United Kingdom does not fight its own corner. It is perfectly proper that it should, as the other 11 member states do. In this country we tend to denigrate ourselves rather too easily and quickly, without looking at the realities.
My noble friend referred to the reform of the institutions. As everyone realises we are in an extraordinary situation in the course of European history. We see barriers tumbling down in all directions, both internally within the European Community and externally in Eastern European countries. Within the Community there is a need to look at the way in which institutions are working. In this Parliament we are always looking to see how we should adapt to new situations, demands and pressures. That is also true within the Community.
The Commission itself needs overhauling to some extent. It is a very efficient bureaucracy, and certainly the most open bureaucracy that I have ever come across. I should like to pay tribute to the very high standard of the officials with whom I, in my modest capacity, have had to deal. However, in the new system of "comitology" which was set up under the Single European Act, whole rafts of secondary legislation are adopted in advisory, management or regulatory committees and such legislation is not published until adopted. It affects the rights and needs of individuals, groups and other interests. If my noble friend is to propose some changes in the institutions and the way they work, this is certainly something that should be looked at closely.
The Commission must be obliged to publish every draft that comes before these committees before being adopted so that, if necessary, there can be some form of European parliamentary or governmental intervention or objection. Certainly, a recent case before the European Court is one which gives us great pleasure in the European Parliament, Under Article 173 the European Parliament is not allowed to take a case before the Eurpean Court in order to annul a decision of another institution. But the European Court of Justice has recently handed down a decision granting admissibility of the Parliament to bring a case before the court. This strengthens the hand of the European Parliament in its control and scrutiny of the Commission's activities. I hope very much that we shall see a reform of Article 173 of the EC Treaty brought forward later this year or the beginning of next year.
Thirdly, the co-operation procedure should be much more widely used. It is seldom recognised, certainly in this country, that over 50 per cent. of all the amendments adopted by the European
1394
Parliament in its plenary sessions pass, either in substance or verbatim, into European Community law. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, understandably referred only to the negative powers of the European Parliament. But the power is a very formidable one when there are so many amendments such a vast proportion of which are now adopted and take their place in European Community law which of course comes down into national law. That is indeed a reason why there should be much closer co-operation between members of the European Parliament and members of national parliaments. I hope very much that the committees being set up in another place will give substance and strength to the co-operation which is ceded for political and other reasons by MEPs from the United Kingdom to those committees. I believe that MEPs can make a very valuable contribution to the political developments of the Community.
With regard to the budget, Parliament is one of the budgetary authorities with the Council. Here again, it is clear that the difference between obligatory and non-obligatory expenditure should be abolished and that Parliament should have equal rights as regards both parts of the budget in conjunction, of course, with the Council. Its powers should also be strengthened in the budgetary control committee where it really could be much more effective in its scrutiny of the Commission's expenditure and of the different programmes and policies set up through the Commission. I believe that if the Parliament is able to keep its main base in Brussels it will facilitate more effective and efficient working. As your Lordships will know, the peripatetic existence of parliamentarians has made it extremely difficult, with all the goodwill and stamina in the world that so many MEPs have, for them to do their work as competently as they would wish.
I would make one comment about the Council. Many MEPs and others have asked that decisions should be taken in public by the Council. I believe this to be both a non-starter and unnecessary. Members of the Council must be able to negotiate in private. Under the co-operation procedure the Council is obliged after first reading to publish a common position. So it is already known before legislation comes to be adopted what the thinking of the Council is. And, of course, it is also generally known what line different member states take. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to press in that particular area.
There is one aspect which I do not think has been raised so far regarding the control and scrutiny of European activity. Although European political co-operation has been mentioned, we have seen between 1979 and now—I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would agree—a remarkable change in the Community's institutions. We have seen a whole series of "building blocks" set up in different areas. We have the European Space Agency, the European Environmental Agency and the Trevi meetings of ministers of the interior deciding matters of asylum and immigration together with trans-border travel. We have of course European political co-operation. All these things, with others, have been set up, but

1395
they are not properly scrutinised, certainly not by national parliaments, and not even by the European Parliament. I believe that a study should be made of how these different blocks might be looked at so that in some way the decisions and the processes by which the decisions are taken can be scrutinised more closely. The development of European political co-operation, I believe, is essential for the strength of Europe.
Many of your Lordships will have felt as I did when reading about the meetings between President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev and will have wondered why the whole future of Europe was being decided at Camp David, or at any rate in the United States. Why was not a European or someone representing European interests involved? Our own territories and the lives of subjects throughout the European Community were clearly the subject of major discussions. The decisions taken during those last few days could affect the whole future of this area of the world. I believe that our Government and the governments of other member states must look much more closely at the way European political co-operation is to work, how it is to be controlled and how we can have effective leadership on the world stage in foreign policy. Certainly, for the future of Europe as a whole, it is essential that we should speak with one voice. We have the largest population and we are the largest trading bloc, yet our voice is minimal. The only place where it seems to have been actively developed is at the United Nations. There, it has been able to strengthen its voice in the field of international affairs. Nevertheless, I think the past week has shown us how Europe has lost out and will continue to lose out in discussing the future unless we can develop EPC.
I do not want to say too much about economic union because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said, we have debated the topic so often in this House. I firmly believe that the ecu will become more widely used, encouraged by industry and tourism as the single market develops. There are many firms which now do their accounting in ecus in cases of trans-border trade, and I believe this is to the benefit of Europeans as a whole. Your Lordships may indeed have seen that there is now a FF500 note printed on the reverse side with the value in ecus. It would be pleasing to hear my noble friend the Minister say that we here shall be producing a £5 or £10 note with sterling shown on one side and ecus on the other, so that the notes can be taken across to the Continent and used without problem.
As regards external pressures on the Community, there have been changes in Eastern Europe, as most speakers have mentioned. However, let us all admit how fragile that change is. There are differences of environment, of training, of personnel and in the development of economies. The European Community has a great role to play in supporting Eastern Europe and strengthening its future. We can do that only if we ourselves in the Community are strong. It will not help our purpose to have a weak or diluted European Community if we wish to play a real part in the future of Europe as a whole.
1396
The castle of Europe has not been mentioned but I believe that it should be used as the gateway for these Eastern European countries to come into the Community. It is the castle of Europe which enforces recognition of multi-party systems and of course they would have to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and accept fundamental freedoms which, after all, are the basic conditions for membership of the Community. Therefore, I would welcome a policy from member states that for all countries which wish to join the Community, perhaps in the distant future 10 to 20 years from now, it should be a training ground for democracy to be part of the Council of Europe.
Finally, as regards security, NATO has served us well over these 40 years. Let us keep NATO. Let us encourage Germany to remain in NATO. I believe that Mr. Gorbachev realises only too well how valuable it is to him that Germany should be part of NATO and not a neutral country lying between Western Europe and the Soviet Union; though clearly it will be difficult for him to get that message across after 40 years of propaganda and saying how evil NATO was. It may therefore take a little time to switch the mentality of the Russian people to understand that NATO is probably their best friend just as it has been our best friend for so many years.
I conclude by saying that history has shown that economic prosperity will only come in a strong democracy and that peace will only come if we have a strong defence. Those are the two principles to which I hope the Government will be looking as they develop their policies for closer integration within the Community.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am indeed grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and I am delighted to see too that she has lost none of the determination, vigour and enthusiasm that she had when she presided over the affairs of that somewhat unruly body, the European Parliament.
1 echo some other speakers in this debate who have said that it is both timely and important. I entirely echo that view and totally agree with it. Qualities that we need in our approach to the Community must include clarity and consistency. I hope that the debate this afternoon will aid the process of making our policy clearer, more consistent and more understandable.
Our relations with the Community should be those of congratulations for what has been achieved in the past and of hope for what we think may be achieved in the future. After all, the achievements have been great and the possibilities are immense; but regrettably our relations with the Community are not so perceived in this country today. They are too often seen to be matters of confrontation, almost of mutual irritation. Every meeting of the European Council tends to be presented and weighed in terms of national gains or losses. Sessions of the Council of Ministers tend to be viewed as attempts by others to impose their collective will on us; indeed, attempts which should be resisted and if at all possible repelled. It is all really rather sad because in reality

1397
the prospects opened up by a greater degree of European unity, particularly having regard to what is happening in Eastern Europe, must surely be welcomed with enthusiasm as opportunities rather than resisted as if they were a serious danger to our national culture and identity.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the fault does not seem to me to lie solely with the present Government. I must say also—and I do so, knowing the traditions of this House, in as uncontroversial a way as I can—that the attitude of the present Administration has not been immediately and obviously helpful in that regard. However, the fault goes further back.
If one were to characterise the three major blunders of British foreign policy since the war, with the possible exception of Suez they would all be connected with our attitudes and policies towards the Community. First, we said that the Six would never get their act together sufficiently to create the Community at all. We were wrong. Secondly, we said that if they created a Community its internal tensions would mean that it could not amount to very much. We were wrong. Thirdly, we said that if they created a Community and if it survived and prospered it would not seriously affect British interests. Again we were wrong.
With hindsight, it is hard to imagine a series of misjudgments of more breath-taking insularity and, as it turned out, more damaging to our national interests. Therefore, we begin any discussion or approach to the Community from the starting point of collective misappreciation. Having started from that point it has been a catching up process for this country ever since. We still seem to fail to appreciate the nature and the extent of the transformations which are now taking place. Now that the debate on the principle of membership of the Community is dead, the real argument should surely be about how to maximise our position inside the Community and how best to influence those collective decisions which directly and deeply affect our continuing prosperity and indeed our social cohesion. That is true whether we place it in the context of developments in British agriculture, future employment policy, or just about anything else.
It is not for me today, on the first occasion that I have burdened the House, to venture into the intricacies of the exchange rate mechanism or the European monetary system. Noble Lords will realise that naturally I have my views on those matters, and in due course I hope to have an opportunity to express them. However, I venture to make four perhaps more general points, all of which seem to me to be relevant to our whole approach to the problems of greater unity inside the Community.
First, we really must stop regarding foreigners, particularly those who are closest to us geographically, as if they were inconvenient distractions from the main business of government, which is of course to preserve our national sovereignty against their knavish tricks. Reading the press during the past week one would be forgiven for believing that war had been redeclared, this time against a new enemy. There is, I must tell the House, a long history in the Community of using health
1398
arguments to protect trade interests. I must also tell the House that it is by no means confined to one nation.
I remember well a disease called Newcastle disease. I am sure that noble Lords will remember it too. It was a plague which was apparently about to fall upon the great British public from French turkeys if French turkeys were to be admitted into Britain in the run-up to Christmas 1983. The Commission went into the matter in some detail; first, to see whether there had been any unlawful state aids to the French turkey interests, and, secondly, to see whether or not there was anything in Newcastle disease. We came to the conclusion that it was a disease that did not have a great effect, as far as we could tell, either on the turkeys or on the people who might eat them. The House will not be surprised to hear that it was a disease that disappeared as quickly as it came—in fact, as soon as 25th December had passed and French turkeys had been excluded from the British market at Christmas!
The only point I make is the simple one that we should not be quite so ready to assume that everyone else in the Community cheats apart from ourselves. Moreover, we should also not forget that despite these trade irritations, which are sometimes considerable, members of the Community are nevertheless prepared to co-operate and co-ordinate their policies in what they perceive to be the common good.
Secondly—this follows from a recognition of our interdependence within the Community—let us learn to pursue those common interests and common solutions in what I hope is a more sensible way. A diplomatic approach which starts off by sandbagging—perhaps I should say handbagging—the opposition as an immediate precursor to the search for a consensus is certainly a novel diplomatic approach; but is it effective? To pursue a consensus requires a readiness to listen and a willingness to compromise. Of course one must have regard to vital national interests—that goes without saying—but the difficulty always lies in defining those national interests and in determining how best to defend them. It is that which creates the problem.
The four years that I spent on the Commission were dominated—I use the word advisedly—by the difficulties associated with the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget. It was, and indeed it is, an issue the importance of which I do not minimise. A lingering sense of grievance or unfairness is no basis on which to proceed. All that is perfectly true. But the way in which the argument was presented, almost to the conscious disregard of other issues about which our partners felt equally strongly, created a reservoir of ill-will and irritation in our over-lectured partners which I fear is not yet exhausted.
Thirdly, we must not continue—I echo what has already been said by some speakers this afternoon—to give the impression that for us Europe is only about trade and economics. I declare a former interest as regards social policy because that is the portfolio I had when I was on the Commission. I was attempting to guide the formulation of social

1399
policy. Social policy, the human face of the Community, or whatever you like to call it, is taken more seriously by almost all of our partners than it is by us. If we are to make a success of 1992 and beyond that social dimension cannot be ignored.
Finally, I echo what my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said about the institutions of the Community and the necessity for a greater degree of democratic accountability. I shall not go into the details of arguments on the subject this evening. I merely say this. The argument about the democratic accountability of the institutions of the Community is joined whether or not this country likes it and whether we are prepared to participate in that argument fully or whether we wish to stand on the sidelines and look at it. The argument is joined at least by the other members of the Community. The sadness and the danger which I feel and which I should like to warn about is that yet again events will take place, attitudes will be formulated, institutions may be created and this country will be standing outside looking at them. We shall be finding ourselves again trying to catch up and to join institutions which, if only we had had the perception to have participated at their formulation, we should be in a much better position to influence.
In the Community we are moving from an era of slow decision-making to one of quicker decision-making. Consensus-building is slow; votes and vetoes are quicker. I believe that there will be more votes and fewer vetoes. The danger I perceive is that, when the votes take place, this country will find itself too often on the losing side. I am obliged to the House for its indulgence.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, with very great pleasure it falls to me, speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to congratulate him on his maiden speech; all the more so because I fully support the thrust of his remarks. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us, he had a remarkable career at the United Nations when he led our delegation there. Subsequently he was a commissioner in Brussels. As he has told us, in that capacity he was concerned with the formulation of social policy. There is not the slightest doubt that, when we come to that subject and later phases of considering our relationship with the European Community, he will be able to play a major role in advising us.
The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is one of a number of Members of this House who have had direct experience of the European Community. We have a distinguished number of former commissioners and some of them will be speaking today. There is the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—though his name is not on the list of speakers—and my noble friend Lord Thomson. Not least there is my noble friend Lord Jenkins, who was a most distinguished president of the Community. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who contributed so much to the affairs of the European Parliament.
1400
With persons with direct experience of the affairs of the Community and with the sterling work of our Select Committee, we are probably unique among assemblies in Western Europe with our in-depth, detailed and considered knowledge of the affairs of the Community. I believe that this fact will stand us in very good stead as we reach the crucial discussions in the future concerning the next steps in the Community. In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that the Government will continue to consult us at every stage and will listen to the differing views, some of which they may agree with and others not but all of which will be based on a full consideration and knowledge of this important subject.
In introducing this debate my noble friend Lord Jenkins drew attention to what has perhaps been one of the most interesting and fundamental issues that we as a nation have faced since the war. I believe that it will be called by future historians the "European question". We have never really come to terms with that question. In considering what our policy should be in the future we should take a quick look at what has happened in the past.
Looking briefly at the Community, there is no doubt at all that when Jean Monnet, supported by M. Schuman, launched the project with coal and steel in 1950, they started something that was fundamentally new in the history of our old Continent. It was taken up enthusiastically by a number of other countries.
At that stage I was involved as a representative of the British coal industry in considering what response the then Attlee Government should give to the invitation to us to join the European Coal and Steel Community. The working party with which I was involved was positive in its view as to what our response should be but for political reasons the Government decided otherwise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that that was a mistaken decision.
Since the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community, there was a period of great difficulty in the Community. In my opinion the next big step forward was one with which the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkins will always be associated; namely, the creation of the European monetary system. It was the creation of that system in 1979 which has continued successfully, much to the surprise of many people in this country. It has represented a further historic step in the creation of Europe.
After the signing of the Treaty of Rome and the formation of the EMS, the third step has been the signing of the single market treaty in which we are full participants. We have been contributing much to its formulation. Then there has been the move towards EMU, economic and monetary union, and, finally, there are the proposals for political union.
Therefore, we must admit that Western Europe is very much on the move. I travel a good deal on the Continent, mainly in a commercial and industrial capacity. What is happening there is taken for granted. The deepening of the Community is accepted without question as being what has to be

1401
continued at the present time and all the more so in the light of the developments in Eastern Europe. In that regard I differ slightly from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who seems to take another view on the subject.
We now have a more united momentum on the part of our European partners as to the next steps in the creation of Europe than we have ever witnessed before. The question remains as to what our response should be to that momentum. We have, to say the least, appeared to be reticent. We have been reminded on numerous occasions from the Government Benches and others that the United Kingdom contribution to what is going on in the Community is substantial. I agree with that. A great deal of work is going on, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, reminded us. But when it comes to policy statements and to general attitudes we give the impression of considerable reticence, to use the mildest term that I can think of. That, rather than the hard work going on at the coal face, if I may employ that phrase, is what communicates itself to people. The time has come to consider whether we should reconsider our attitude and where it is leading us.
I fully accept that in historic terms entering the European Community in a wholehearted and unreserved manner has been a very difficult choice for this country. With our imperial past, our Commonwealth past and our special relationship with the United States, there has always been the feeling that we should not become too committed to one part of the world because it might jeopardise our relations elsewhere. For example, in the time of Sir Anthony Eden there was the talk of the three circles. It was said that somehow Britain was at the centre of those circles—the European circle, the Atlantic circle and the Commonwealth circle.
The other factor that has complicated our approach to Europe is the feeling that what we really want out of Europe is a free trade area, a point to which a number of noble Lords have already referred. That, I suppose, is one of the reasons why we signed the single market treaty with such alacrity. It would remove the obstacles to trade so that we could move the packages across the frontiers, as my noble friend said in his opening speech. A good many people prefer to see the development of a free trade area and the removal of the obstacles to trade so that governments can get on with the business of governing their countries. That formulation would be entirely satisfactory to many people. It is, however, no longer a feasible formulation. The way Western Europe is developing and the commitments already made to that development would prevent that easy solution. We have to come to terms with those fundamental issues.
The Europe that is being created today is not simply a Europe of trade. That is not the way in which any Continental Western European country sees it. I believe that an increasing number of people in this country are also beginning to realise that. But even in matters of trade one cannot just stop by removing the physical obstacles, whether they be tariff barriers or non-tariff barriers. Trade cannot flow freely unless we have something approaching a
1402
single currency. The fluctuation of currencies is a large impediment to trade. It is a major non-tariff barrier. It is easy for some to say that traders can always insure themselves against fluctuations. Of course they can, but it all adds to the cost of the operation. If we really want to create a single market, a single market currency follows as night follows day. This is what we have to work for.
I am a little reluctant to accept the alternative proposals put forward by the Government. They have said that we should go to stage one and then have competing currencies. Competing currencies and letting the best currency win means only one thing—a currency area effectively dominated by the deutschmark. Is that what we want? The Germans themselves are ready to put their currency at the disposal of a single currency operation. If they are ready to do it, which would safeguard the rest of us, why should we be pleading an alternative solution which would inevitably lead us to being subjugated and submerged by the deutschmark in a free currency operation? I have found it very difficult to understand the rationale of the Government's alternative proposals. I am relieved that they are not being taken very seriously by other countries as I do not believe that they would be in our interests let alone anyone else's.
There are other aspects of the matter. The question of political union has now come on to the agenda. Of course this has begun by being a general declaration of intent. That happens to be the way our Continental friends work. Right from the start in the Community there have been declarations of intent and then the detail has been worked out later. We prefer to do it the other way—we prefer to start with the detail and see where it leads us. It has been unfortunate that the Government's principal response to this idealistic vision of a future Europe united in like-minded institutions and objectives has been that we should first sit down and discuss what it is not going to do.
I happen to be on a number of commercial and industrial boards. If I went to a board meeting with a proposition for the expansion of the business and one of my colleagues said to me, "Wait a minute; before we consider your plan for expanding the business let us go through all the ways in which the business should not be expanded", I would take a very dim view of that colleague's intervention. We give that impression to our friends on the Continent. There is no harm in our having a different view about what political union should be, but to start by setting down what it should not be seems to create a rather reluctant impression.
What we need to do seriously at this juncture, with all that is happening in Eastern Europe, with the momentum that has been developing in Western Europe and with the much greater importance which now attaches to Western Europe in world terms, is to reassess our role. Indeed we need to address ourselves to the very question which has been raised in such a timely way in the Motion put to us today by my noble friend Lord Jenkins. I hope that in that reassessment, without in any way minimising our own interest as a nation, we would seek to identify the extent to which those interests could be better

1403
served by doing it in conjunction with our European partners. That is what it is all about.
The question of sovereignty is frequently raised but there is no real sovereignty these days among nations which trade with one another. A large chunk of British sovereignty was given up with the removal of exchange controls. Once money moves freely, once people move freely and once goods move freely, there is a limitation on sovereignty. There is no harm in sovereignty being given up in that way in the wider interest. The time when sovereignty has to be defended to the end and to the limit is when there is a hostile intent, as has happened in two world wars. Then one defends one's sovereignty to the limit. But when there is the prospect of linking up with others with similar institutions, political backgrounds and so on in the common interest to do these things together more effectively than we can do them separately, to talk about defending sovereignty can create the wrong impression.
We now need to make a reassessment of many issues. We need to reassess our attitude to developments in the Community and to Europe in general. We need to reassess our attitude to the momentum that has very clearly developed. I suspect that we are doing that. I say "I suspect" because some of the speeches made from the Government side from time to time are a little coded, but when they are decoded, as the newspapers have tried to do recently, a more positive intent seems to be emerging. I hope that is true and I hope that we in this House can help that forward.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on his maiden speech, which reflected his considerable first-hand knowledge and his wide historical perspective of the European question. It is with that historic perspective that I should like to begin my remarks. When we discuss today, following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the future of European unity we must first of all count our blessings, for never in a thousand years of history has there been a more auspicious and stable Europe than that of the European Community. It is not only a functioning institution; it is also the epicentre of an evolving process. But with all its imperfections the Europe of the Twelve is a healthy organism which is flexible enough to weather much turbulence and bend to changing circumstances.
I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and those of other noble Lords when they sketch certain route maps and timetables for the economic sphere, especially when they urge us to join the European monetary system. I emphatically believe that in this context we should put on record the fact that much more must be done in the educational and cultural field. Of course, I applaud the sentiments that reach for growing consensus in the political realm. More co-ordination of foreign and social policy is a worthy aspiration, but such aspirations should be much more carefully thought through than they have been. The processes may be hastened but not rushed.
1404
I know that there is a widespread impression abroad that the British Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have acted as silencers of the sonorous clarion calls from Paris, Bonn and Brussels. But there has also been a very recent perception—and I believe my feeling in this is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—that, while on-stage Mrs. Thatcher may have sounded muted tones for European unity, both the French and German leaders tend to hammer a whole octave lower off-stage. Whenever the vital interests of the two great Continental powers are at stake, they are just as self-assertive as they have ever been. They may ask for sweeping powers for the Strasbourg Parliament but, in reality, neither the French Chamber of Deputies nor the Bundestag relishes the thought of turning into rubber-stamping assemblies; just as at any time the British Prime Minister baulks at the thought of the Palace of Westminster being downgraded to a listed building.
In essence there may be much more scope for co-ordinating European foreign relations. There is still a legitimate role for the traditional, individual foreign policies to be shaped and practised in the old chancelleries of Europe. I for one am reassured living in a country the government of which do not share Spain's compassionate regard for Fidel Castro, France's complaisance for Saddam Hussein, Italy's benevolence towards Colonel Gadaffi or Greece's uncritical respect for Chairman Arafat. I approve of a government who do not lightly offer the other cheek to states protecting terrorism in the awareness that those states, while occasionally releasing some prisoners with one hand, still hold or snatch more captives with the other.
I believe that rather then rushing into rapid institutionalisation we should greatly expand into European trade, industrial mergers, tourism and educational and cultural exchanges. But, above all, we should strengthen the human links of the Community and shed those stereotypes of old received ideas and misconceptions about our neighbours. Let us discard this Maginot mentality which only focuses on dangers of the past rather than on the perils of the future and neglects opportunities offered by radical change. Let us see our neighbours as they are today in a fresh light for there is now a generation of truly new Europeans.
Such a new attitude of mind will help us to deal much more effectively with the great momentous issues and priorities before us—none more momentous or immediate than the question of German unification and Germany's role in a uniting Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, quite rightly, that a united Germany must be expected to play a political role commensurate with its economic prowess. Fortunately, the record and achievement of the Federal Republic, not only in the economic and other material fields but also in the sphere of human rights, the building of a fully functioning civil society, a healthy respect for the third world, and a revulsion against militarism among the young are hugely impressive.
Two generations of Germans that bear no responsibility for the decades of darkness have governed and been governed in exemplary fashion.

1405
In fact, future historians may well consider that era of Bonn as the truly golden age of German history. Far from being resigned to or grudgingly acknowledging this achievement, we in Britain should feel a sort of co-proprietorial pride in having played a major role in the early stages of democratising and humanising many sectors of German political life: the German trade unions, a free press, school reforms, notions of civic ethics and much besides.
Like so many others, I must admit that I still see Hitler's footprints far from erased. The virus of racism and anti-semitism is rampant once again, but today it does not nest on German soil. Instead, it is spreading fast both east and south. Let us give credit where it is due. In 45 years no neo-Nazi movement in Germany has sent a single deputy into the legislative chamber. In a country that has lost in two world wars more than two-fifths of its historic national territory, only the other day the one major party of the extreme Right, a party of revisionism and revanchism, had secured a mere 1.9 per cent. of the vote while, regrettably, elsewhere—for instance, in France—its equivalent is safely ensconced with 11 per cent., 12 per cent. or 14 per cent. of the vote. In Italy a neo-fascist movement can claim up to one-tenth of the electorate.
1 believe that the consolidation of Anglo-German relations must be one of the most important objectives of British foreign policy, just as the consolidation of a united Germany embedded within the Community must be the prime objective of all Europeans and of course the prime objective of any German Government. Chancellor Kohl's insistence on speedy coalescence of the different provinces of the German Democratic Republic with the federal units of West Germany, set forth in Article 23 of the West German constitution, is the most solid recipe for a smooth transition of the troubled former communist lands into a free and democratic policy.
The European Community is already tackling with laudable speed the question of assisting the Central and East European countries. The thrust towards democracy in the lands between the Baltic and the Black Sea may well be irreversible, but the traumas of transition are tremendous. The gap between great expectations and sparse results facing untutored, raw electorates may create tremendous new dangers. Worse still, old demons, amalgams of communist and fascist relics, may well resurface in new garbs and thwart the progress in Central and Eastern Europe at the end of this century, just as the diehard Bourbons and Bonapartistes eroded France's constitutional monarchy and its second republic in the last. Will the newly enfranchised peoples surmount the turmoil, or will patience snap in the face of economic distress, administrative inefficiency or moral lapses by the new untried governing elites?
Above all, and worst of all, will the colossus in the East survive the most excruciating time of troubles in all its imperial history? Nevertheless, we must have faith in the enduring will for freedom inherent in the peoples of those lands and we must resolve to do all we can to make the transition to democracy as smooth as possible. Before long these nations should share many of the benefits of the EFTA
1406
countries. But we are entitled to ask for strict disciplines. Far from bundling them together—there is a great danger of thinking of them as a whole—we should one by one insist that they show us how they can establish those economic practices as well as observe those human rights and standards of which we can approve. At the same time, we should not delay the continuous growth and expansion of the European Community beyond the benchmark year of 1992.
There are at the moment some suitable candidates who could add hugely to our strength. I should like to refer to Austria's application of 17th July 1989 to become a full member of the Community. The positive arguments speak for themselves. Austria is a successful democracy, economically prosperous and geographically a key link between north and south, east and west. Seventy per cent. of its trade is already transacted with the Community. There may well be two sources of possible misgiving. Austria's status of permanent neutrality is sometimes considered to be a question mark. However, recent developments in the East have largely, if not wholly removed its significance. In fact, as Austria has played such an active and constructive role internationally as one of the most helpful actors in the CSCE process and in the framework of the United Nations peace keeping efforts, it should be considered a valuable asset rather than a liability. Further, there is a feeling in some quarters that Austria's adherence would be "Anschluss by the back door", reviving echoes of a greater Germany; but that can be easily countered by the manifest emergence of an unselfconscious and genuine Austrian identify and by the practical consideration that, as an equal member of the Community, Austria would less than ever have to lean on a powerful neighbour.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked where Europe ends and where are its frontiers. I hope that by the end of this millenium at least some if not all of the EFTA countries and a few of the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe might join the solidly built house of Europe. A dream of wider structures which would see Europe in ever closer friendship and partnership with the great democracies of America and a reformed Russia, a dream of a great community from Vancouver to Vladivostok, is today far less Utopian and far more real than the prophetic vision of that French exile in wartime Britain, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, Jean Monnet, when he produced his first blueprint for a coal and steel community which would evolve into a common and ultimately single European market—and all this still within the lifetime of most of us who are today in your Lordships' House.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. The terms of the Motion are of particular interest since they in a sense go back on the philosophy of the founders of the European Community among whom, above all, is Mr. Jean Monnet, the predecessor but four of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as President of the European Commission.

1407
Mr. Monnet and the other founders of the Community felt, even after two world wars caused by nationalism, that nationalism in Europe was so strong that there was no point in trying to persuade the European states to sit down at some great conference in the Palace of Versailles to sign away ther national sovereignties. If one believed in European unity, as of course they did, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, does, the way to obtain it was to begin with small things. Start with coal and steel first, if the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will forgive me for referring to coal as a small matter, and in the end one would achieve one's aims. To paraphrase what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, described as the route to Birmingham via Beachy Head, the way to the heavenly city of European union was via lettuces and tomatoes.
In a sense that has worked. We have not had a major conference on European union since the 1950s. Had we had one at any time, I have no doubt that the European Community would have collapsed. That is what makes the present situation so extraordinarily interesting. There is the possibility of an inter-governmental conference on European union within the year. I am not sure that we have reached the stage of maturity in this country nor indeed in some other European countries where we can afford such an international conference to consider signing away sovereignty in the way that the Motion suggests.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on a positive and constructive speech. It must have given all sceptics of the Government's European policy grounds for confidence and optimism, as I do not believe that I have heard in the House a governmental speech so positively phrased. There are one or two points upon which I disagree with my noble friend; I shall come to those in a minute.
Before we settle to discussing what kind of European union we have or should have, we need to resolve six major points. I should like to draw attention to them. First, there is the question of Central Europe. Let us call it Central rather than Eastern Europe because the phrase "Eastern Europe" means eastward looking, and the countries about which we are talking were always referred to as Mitteleuropa before 1914 and 1939. Obviously, Western Europe has the major role to play in leading those countries back towards civil and civilised societies, of which they were in reach before 1914 or 1939. However, that is a difficult matter.
The idea that eight new countries from Eastern Europe could, within the foreseeable future, try to join the Community, as well perhaps as five out of the six EFTA countries, not to speak of Malta, which I understand applied to join the Community yesterday, suggests an enormous task. Is it conceivable that the European Community of 2010 could have 24 members? As I understand it, the Community of Twelve works reasonably well; but a greatly expanded number of nation state members of the Community would threaten the work that has already been achieved.
My conclusion is that in Western Europe we should press ahead as fast as possible to achieve the
1408
single market to which we have already given our names, carry out that degree of European monetary and economic union which we decide we want and carry through the institutional changes which we think appropriate, before we accept large numbers of new applications. That will obviously be a delicate and sensitive matter, especially as it is clear that, by the end of the year, the East Germans, as part of the newly united Germany, will probably already be European Community nationals. If the East Germans are already in the door, so to speak, it will make it difficult for us to be other than encouraging in the long term towards the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and others who will obviously wish to apply.
My second point is that we must take extremely seriously the need to make the European union which we are constructing as profound (in every sense of the word) as possible in order to enable the newly united Germany to find its satisfaction within it. In this respect, I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who seemed to feel that to make a special effort to satisfy a united Germany within the European Community was unnecessary. I see what he meant; nevertheless the Germans themselves are surely aware of the anxiety which their unification could cause among their neighbours. After all, it is they who have so often quoted the admirable phrase of Thomas Mann: he said that he wished to see not the germanisation of Europe but the Europeanisation of Germany.
Thirdly, we should take a good look again at the ideas canvassed in the 1950s, and subsequently from time to time, for some kind of European security organisation. There was a time when to mention such a suggestion was to risk accusations that one was likely to cause decoupling with the United States. I remember making this suggestion at a conference at Konigswinter and the then editor of the Sunday Times telling me that I was risking the future of civilisation itself. I knew perfectly well if I had caused such a reaction I must be on the right lines.
Now, however, that point of view is no longer so eccentric. My noble friend Lord Carrington suggested it at Luxembourg earlier this year when delivering the Winston Churchill Memorial Lecture. On these Benches I am fortunate enough to have been bred in the good old school which suggests that when my noble friend Lord Carrington takes up a point of view, it is bound to be both practical and desirable. In the changed strategic situation of the world after the collapse of communism which is apparently no longer a threat, as the United States Secretary of Defence said, we should, cautiously, no doubt (the Soviet Union still being a major nuclear power with a large arsenal of nuclear weapons scattered around the surface of the Soviet Union, including, I understand, some territories which are already wishing to secede) reconsider these ideas for a European security organisation which could in the long run arrange for Europe to look after her own defence.
Fourthly, we should carefully consider this word "subsidiarity" which I find difficult to pronounce; it is an ugly word. I understand that it originated in the Vatican. There is no harm in that. The whole

1409
idea of representative government is said to have derived originally from Vatican procedures in the Middle Ages. Although "subsidiarity" gives the impression of being a clear concept, it is not really at all clear what it means. Therefore, we should contemplate a new treaty on subsidiarity, as suggested by Otto von Habsburg, MEP, in a recent interview with Dr. George Urban, published in the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Why is this necessary? It is necessary because the whole ambiguity as to what should be within the competence of the European Community and what should remain within the competence of the nation state seems to me to risk damaging the relations between this country and her fellow members of the Community.
My next point relates to the democratic deficit, a rather unworthy way of describing the need to increase democratic accountability within the Community. We have had interesting contributions on the matter in the course of the debate from my noble friend Lady Elles and also from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his admirable maiden speech. I feel, however, that unless we contemplate sooner or later the European Parliament having its own tax-raising powers, we shall not take the Parliament seriously nor will the Parliament take itself seriously. This is something we should consider.
I have two other points, the first of which relates to this country. We need to make a psychological change. It is 17 years since we signed the Treaty of Rome, during the course of which European law has applied in this country. We have more or less accepted a federal agriculture and a federal policy relating to fisheries. It is plain that during these years we have had no intention of withdrawing from the Community. Nevertheless, as several noble Lords have pointed out, many seem to suppose that the battles of 1961, 1973 and 1975 have to be fought, even now, every day. If we read leader writers even in the quality papers we feel that the option of withdrawing from the Community is still considered, even though the real chances of another place contemplating the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 must be as remote as the possibility of the Queen dissolving Parliament and sending for a Member of your Lordships' House to form a government.
The fact is that we are in the European Community, even though the nation has not fully accepted it. The Governraent could do a great deal more to try to get over this psychological block. Now that the Opposition have become convinced of the virtues of the Community, they have a great responsibility also to do so. I have never seen the bishops take part in a debate on Europe but they also could play a part; universities too—why not? At all events, it is necessary to carry out what I suppose it will be fair to say—recalling Thomas Mann's remark—is the Europeanisation of Britain at the same time as the Europeanisation of Germany.
When thinking how all this fits together, I am aware that I have not devoted adequate attention to the terms of the Motion before us. If we resolve the questions which I have indicated as being important
1410
positively and constructively, we shall, however, find that it will not matter much whether we are operating, or think we are operating, within a European confederation, a federation or a union. All these words are vague, and have different meanings, or are understood to mean different things, in different countries. It will all the same have become plain that we shall have formed an association which will dominate our lives and the lives of our neighbours for the foreseeable future. We shall in some way have broken through into a newly constructive period in our national life.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for putting down this Motion and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard on his maiden speech. We all know that he has had a distinguished career not only in the United Nations and in the European Community but also in another place. I served with him there and enjoyed debating this subject with him and many others, if not in the Chamber then in the Tea Room. I very much enjoyed his speech, although enjoyment does not necessarily indicate agreement, as he will know. The whole House enjoyed his speech and I congratulate him on it. I sincerely hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him in the future on this subject and on many others.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in opening his speech said that the Government and this country were marching out of step with Europe. I do not necessarily agree with that, even though it is a Tory Government. Which Europe did he mean? Is it the Europe of 12 nations, or was he talking about the Europe of 30 nations, many of which have only recently escaped from tyranny and fought to regain the sovereignty which some people now fear we are about to lose? Therefore, when we talk at>out Europe let us make sure that we are talking about the wider Europe and not the narrow Europe of 12 Western European states.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also made the point that the Prime Minister took a populist, nationalist approach to the Euro-elections last summer. The implication was that because she took that approach she lost the election. The noble Lord has been around long enough to know that that is not true. That election was lost because of the intolerable policies which the Prime Minister was imposing at home. The policy of under-funding the National Health Service, for example, was one of the major issues. I am certain that the reason for the Conservatives losing that election was far removed from the question of sovereignty.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins also sought to reassure the House and the country concerning the fear of federation which is threatened. He said, in effect, "Don't worry, chaps, all will be well. You are not going to have a federal United States of Europe". But I have heard it all before. Time and time again I have heard assurances that this would not happen or that would not happen. I remember reading the document which was issued by the Government at the time of the 1975 referendum as to whether we should remain within the European Community that

1411
the then Government had ensured through negotiations that there would not be economic and monetary union which would cause unemployment. Now it is on the agenda. So that assurance did not come to much, did it?
However, do not listen to what I say. Listen to what the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place had to say in its second report about the danger from creeping federalism. On page xvi of the report the committee says:
"We should not underestimate the continued strength of feeling and momentum for a move towards federal objectives. These may be long term goals, but they provide the context in which many are developing their thinking at present. There exists a high degree of consensus which, we believe, will grow. Emphases may change. There may be varying tactical shifts and differences of detail, but the old objective of a federal Europe is being reinforced at the highest official and political levels".
Noble Lords do not have to take it from me that federalism is very high on the agenda. They can take it from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place, which issued its report on 14th March.
Are we good Europeans or are we not? The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and others believe that we are not. We are always being criticised, whatever the government. The present Government are being criticised because Britain is not sufficiently communautaire. However, this country contributes a devil of a lot to the EC. It certainly contributes £2,000 million a year to its coffers. It is also a dumping ground for its manufactured goods, as is evidenced by the £13-4 billion trade deficit in manufactures last year. We also helped it out in invisibles, because last year we had a deficit in invisibles of £2-8 billion. If that were not enough, we also inflict upon ourselves higher food prices to the extent of £20 per week per family. So when it is said that we are not making any contribution or a sufficient contribution to the EC, those facts should be taken into account.
I hate having to do this, but I find myself having to defend the Prime Minister. She is accused of being shrill and of handbagging or sandbagging other European leaders. Is that not what a Prime Minister should do? Should she not stand up for the people she represents? I thought that that was what it was all about. That is why she is elected. The Prime Minister of this country is not elected to sit down and be handbagged or sandbagged by somebody else. The Prime Minister of this country is there to speak for this nation and to safeguard the interests of the people of this nation. Let us hear no more about that.
If anybody was sandbagged or handbagged at the last Dublin conference it was our Prime Minister when the Franco-German axis suddenly brought forward, with little notice, the question of political union. There are other points of view, and I hope that I shall be able to put some of them.
The situation in Europe is, as many noble Lords have noted, developing very quickly. Countries which have been in bondage for 40 or 50 years have suddenly decided that they want their freedom. We have been urging them to do that for years. What we must not now do is to frighten them by building
1412
in Western Europe a new superstate. If they see that there is a new superstate in Western Europe, perhaps with a central defence system, as was propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, who has just spoken, will that not frighten them off? Will they not be concerned that they will be put under threat or duress by that new powerful body in Western Europe of which a reunified and strong Germany is the centre? We should take those matters into account too.
We have heard a great deal about this country joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. It is thought, not only on the Conservative side but apparently now on my side of the House as well, that that will be a great panacea which will solve our problems. But it will not do so. The only way in which we can solve the deep economic problems of this country is by doing the right things in this country. No one else will do it for us. We have to do it. The suggestion that, by going into the ERM, interest rates and mortgage rates will suddenly come down and that nothing else will have to give is quite frankly a bit of economic illiteracy because it will not happen that way. We can succeed only if we have the economic will to succeed and to do those things in this country which are necessary.
I am sure that the Minister has the statistics. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because he once took me to task when I dared to give those figures. The fact is that this country, which is outside the ERM, has since 1981 out-performed those countries which are within the ERM. The average rate of growth in Britain since 1981 has been 3-4 per cent. as against an average of 2-7 per cent. for the countries inside the ERM. Unemployment in this country is 5-6 per cent. as opposed to France's unemployment figure of 9-4 per cent. We are outside the ERM and the French are inside the ERM. As for inflation, apart from the past year, the British average and the European average of those people outside the ERM has been just as good as that of those inside the ERM, so the arguments are not all one way. Before we join the ERM, we should be sure that it will do us good rather than harm.
Like me, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mistrusts the short-termism of the City. However, at present the prime mover regarding our entry into the ERM is the City and we should therefore suspect its motives and be wary of its recommendations.
I am approaching the end of my time. I have a great deal more to say, but I just cannot say it. I do not believe that it is for us, now or at any time in the future, to enter into greater political union within Europe. We know that federalism will end a thousand years of great history. People say to me, "We must make progress". I heard one of those European MPs say on television last night, "We must make progress", but progress towards what? When a man is condemned to death, he proceeds from the condemned cell along the passage to the place of execution, but after that he is dead. That is progress too.
I am afraid that that is the kind of progress that would come about if we accepted the recommendations of those people who want greater

1413
political, monetary and economic union. I sincerely hope that this Government and any future government will resist those recommendations and insist that this country and this Parliament retain the sovereignty of the British people so that they and only they—not a group of foreign potentates—decide what is good for this nation and its people.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Jenkins, I believe that opposition in this country to our becoming a full member of what is now an incipient European Political Community is, as was evident from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, largely based on the fear that we should thereby inevitably become a mere state in some kind of federation closely resembling that of the United States. That fear, though widespread, is, in my view, groundless for the following reasons.
The American colonies which came together at the end of the 18th century already had many things in common; namely, language, religion, cultural background, history and, above all perhaps, a common system of law. They therefore found it possible to create a federation which featured a President with extensive powers; a Congress which also had certain agreed powers over the states; a federal army and navy recruited from all over the Union; and a federal police force. Many of the same features were present at the formation of other successful federations.
The situation on the mainland of Western Europe in 1945 was totally different from that of America in 1779. The states concerned had just emerged from a devasting war in which almost all had at some stage been totally defeated. The idea common to all was that it simply must not happen again and that the best way to prevent that was in some way to co-operate closely. However, they did not possess then, as we have noted, those features which resulted in federation in other parts of the world. That was to make efforts towards some kind of political unity much more difficult.
Let us see what happened. After a year or two of discussion which only resulted—thanks chiefly to our influence—in the creation of the Council of Europe, which had no supra-national powers at all, the first step towards unity came in May 1950 in the shape of the Coal and Steel Authority. Encouraged by its success, the federalists—those who looked towards something like the United States—put forward the Pleven Plan for a merger of the armed forces of France and Germany in the shape of the European Defence Community. However, that was rejected in 1954 by the French Assembly and it was the first victory of the nationalists.
Impressed by that, the Continentals began discussing after Suez, at first with our participation, an entirely new and genial project for economic union which resulted in the Treaty of Rome. That was obviously where we should have come in by persisting in, and not abandoning, the negotiations. The treaty did, of course, have certain supra-national features to which we strongly objected on
1414
nationalistic grounds. However, it was nothing like a United States of Europe on the American model.
In 1958 de Gaulle appeared to accept the treaty but after the Algerian settlement in 1964 he rejected its provisions for a qualified majority vote which resulted in the famous Luxembourg Compromise, the second major victory of the nationalists. That compromise, which we accepted when we joined in 1972, remained theoretically in force until 1986; in other words, the essential structure of the Community did not change throughout that period, in spite of the doubling of its members and some slight increase in the powers of the European Parliament.
But as the 1980s wore on, it became more and more evident that the complete abolition of all impediments to inter-Community trade which, largely on our insistence, had already been agreed should take place in 1992, would of itself necessitate some strengthening of the treaty. It is in fact difficult to see how an economic union of states with very different standards of living can operate if it is based purely on what would in effect be some sort of survival of the fittest.
The Single European Act was therefore negotiated and eventually accepted in 1987 by all the national parliaments, including our own. It did not go so far as many would have wanted but it provided for rather more decisions being taken by qualified majority vote, for rather more powers for the European Parliament and for some strengthening of the means of achieving a common foreign policy which might eventually—as my noble kinsman Lord Thomas suggested—even involve a common defence.
Very broadly speaking, that is where we now stand. Various things are obviously now on the horizon, including a common currency and a largely independent European central bank which, however, as a guess, could well be made dependent on some qualified vote in the Council of Ministers and on a large majority in the European Parliament. It is also possible—and, I should have thought, clearly desirable—that Brussels should increasingly be the centre of most Community activities. Certainly the European Parliament should be situated there and no doubt eventually the Council of Ministers, who, on the political side, might well have a small permanent staff.
Now there are those who say that all this is old and out-of-date thinking. We should now concentrate on creating a wider Europe, a "European House" which, according to some, must incorporate Russia or even the Soviet Union in close association with North America. But these are very vague, long-term considerations, dependent on the future of NATO and on what actually happens in the Soviet Union. Nor are they likely to achieve any reality unless there is a strong Western Europe, including Germany, speaking increasingly with one voice.
Here the essential point is that the existing structure of the Community will not change. There will be no President of Europe directing a European federal government dependent on the European Parliament. There will be no European ministry of foreign affairs or of defence, or indeed any European

1415
ministries at all. There will be no European foreign service, no European army or navy and not even a European CIA. Rightly or wrongly, the national feeling in all our ancient nation states is too strong to allow any such developments.
So I suggest that if the Community, without changing its essential structure, proceeds on its present projected path, there is no reason whatever for the inhabitants of this country, any more than those of the other member states, to feel that they are, as it were, being governed by foreigners in some rather alien administration. It is, rather, a welcome opportunity to take part in a great international venture of a completely novel type which will preserve the individual characteristics of members while enabling all collectively to play a significant part in world affairs.
This is all the more necessary in the present condition of the world. The collapse of communism and even possibly the Soviet Union, coupled with the prospective unification of Germany, make a united Western Europe all the more essential. The absorption of East Germany into the Community will naturally be difficult but, with all the wealth of Western Germany behind it, it will be possible. The prospect of a united Germany being a full and active member of the Community is even more important than formerly, in view of the fact that NATO—though it must go on—will clearly, given the collapse of Russia, be of much less significance.
The relations of the Community with the other European countries which have also recently abandoned communism will clearly be different. Certainly they, or at least three of them, are as "European" as we are. But nearly half a century under communism has made it impossible for them to change over quickly to a free market economy. There will be unemployment and many hardships and perhaps their present love affair with the West will suffer. As friendly associates, a common Community policy towards them is essential. But that can hardly come about unless Germany is a full member of the Community and the ministerial Council in Brussels and thus does not, or cannot, pursue an independent policy.
One would have thought that at this critical moment Her Majesty's Government would be in the forefront of those who favour greater political European unity. It is not only a question of our joining the European Monetary System, which seems already to be imminent. It is our general attitude toward any proposal for greater unity, whether economic or political, that is so deplorable. Some proposals, such as the Delors plan, may be criticised, but the necessity of progress in principle must surely be acknowledged.
For instance, what is the point, among other things, of totally rejecting a social charter which in principle is accepted by all other Community Members; of refusing some additional powers of co-decision to a European Parliament which, if the Community is to have any supra-national characteristics, must play an essential part; of rejecting the views on this point even of the Tory Members of the European Parliament; of declining
1416
to agree to its election by proportional representation, which alone might make it fully representative of European public opinion; of effectively preventing MEPs from even entering the Palace of Westminster; and finally, being obviously suspicious of any proposal for increasing political unity, which alone, according to many experts, is more likely than anything else to bind the reunited Germany to the Western world?
There are rumours that these views are not altogether shared by some Members of the Cabinet. But it is pretty certain that they are those at present held by an embattled Britannia in Downing Street, conscious of considerable nationalistic support, brandishing her trident at the misguided federalists on the other side of the Channel, no longer ruling the waves but intent, so far as concerns the Single European Act, at least on waiving the rules! Britannia's attitude must surely change if Britain is not to find herself marginalised in the vital conference at the end of the year. Happily, some reliable political prophets are predicting that it will change. The forward-looking speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, this afternoon encourages us to hope so.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this important and interesting debate for the reason that your Lordships may have gathered from the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I have been appointed chairman of a committee formed by the European Communities Select Committee to consider these matters. I shall say a few words on the debate and then quite shortly I should like to tell your Lordships about that sub-committee.
I regard the debate as of enormous value. Like all your Lordships, I am greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for starting it off I am also indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his speech. I join in welcoming him for a number of reasons. Since I first heard him speak (I believe in another place) I have enjoyed listening to his voice; and I liked hearing it again.
I agree with him that the debate is timely: it will help to make these problems more understandable. I most strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said at the start of the debate, that there has been persistent misunderstanding. To have a debate in this House during which not only the former President of the Commission but three other former commissioners, two ambassadors, a Minister and one or two former ministers speak is of enormous value.
However, there can be misunderstandings. I most humbly suggest to your Lordships that that was proved by the robust speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He said "I have heard it all before". If I may say so to the noble Lord, so have we.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: And we shall hear it again.
Lord Aldington: We shall hear it again. The noble Lord made a new point about the fear of the new Eastern European countries that they would shrink away from the European Community because of the proposals that he put into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It seems to me much more likely that, as the Eastern Europeans look at the Community, they will see a most successful community of nations. They will see a community whose economic growth, trade and happiness have improved, a community which stands free, with sovereign member states uniting together in their common purposes. I wish the Community to develop that aspect further so that it can be of value to the Eastern European countries as it has been of value to the EFTA countries whose main trading partner it is.
I have had the honour to chair an inquiry into relations between the Community and EFTA. Noble Lords will see the report in two days' time. Why is EFTA interested in the Community? It is because of the success of the Community. Why are the Eastern European countries looking to the Community? It is because of its success.
I return to the theme of misunderstanding. The Motion refers to a more precise shape for future European political and monetary union. There is nothing new about those aims. They have been there for a long time, as the noble Lord said at the outset of our debate. The arguments—there are arguments, and they will continue—are about what those words mean. What are the aims? What do those words entail? What steps should be taken towards their achievement? What institutional implications are there?
I give an example. Noble Lords will have found difficulty over the past few years in understanding what is meant by the proponents of monetary union and by the Government when they talk about monetary union. It is quite clear that they do not mean the same thing. There appeared to be a new definition of monetary union in the mind of my noble friend when he gave his very interesting and positive speech. I applaud the call for our Government to take an active role in seeking to define the more precise shape for those proposals. I am very glad that they welcome those words in the Motion. I know that the Government have taken a positive stance on the implementation of European legislation, directives and policies. However, I very much hope that they will continue to take a positive attitude to the proposals for the future.
I read with great pleasure the positive speech by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in Paris at the end of April. As has been said, much that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said today was positive. However, I share the views of some about the danger that we may be forced to dance to someone else's tune because our tune is not being played. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the Motion today.
What is the best way to sort out misunderstandings? Debates such as this help. But your Lordships' House has developed a very good means of securing a little more clarity on issues that trouble our nation. Many of us have been members
1418
of Select Committees on various subjects. As a new member of the European Communities Select Committee, perhaps I may say that under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, it has played an enormous part in informing your Lordships and informing public debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, preceded me as chairman of sub-committee A. The role that he has had as chairman of that committee over the past five years on many very difficult economic, financial and trade subjects has been of enormous value both to this House and to the understanding of the problems within the nation.
I welcome the idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that an ad hoc committee should be set up to consider the proposals for economic and monetary union and for political union. They appear to be related in time and on the accountability issue. The sub-committee's terms of reference, which were read out by the Leader of the Opposition, are:
"to consider the implications for the United Kingdom and the European Community of proposals for economic and monetary union and for political union with special reference to the institutional changes which might be involved"
The inquiry will benefit from work done by the Select Committee in previous years. We should have in mind two notable reports; first, that published in 1985 on European union and, secondly, that published in 1989 by the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on the Delors Committee report. Many other reports are also of value to us.
The membership of sub-committee A is only 12. We have recently undertaken the EFTA report and are now carrying out another inquiry. However, the membership of the new ad hoc sub-committee will total 20, drawn from all sides of the House. It will have as its members some of your Lordships who have special experience of the matters into which we are looking. We hope to be well equipped to listen to evidence which we shall be taking from next week on. We shall sit fairly intensively until the end of July, expect to deliberate in October and report in November. I am sure that my colleagues share my view that we shall draw strength and understanding from debates such as this. Indeed, I hope that this will not be the last debate on these issues before we come to deliberate.
The work of the Select Committee and its sub-committees is an excellent example of the way in which national parliaments can play a part in the general accountability process of the Commission, the Council and the European concept. As a result of the steps taken by our predecessors, we in this House have set an example. When talking to Members of the European Parliament, which we visited two weeks ago, I found that we are well understood and respected. During my visit to Strasbourg I learned for the first time how that Parliament works. I gained an understanding of the importance and value of its work and of the high quality of our Members of that Parliament.
We in the Select Committee have a relationship with those Members. We call for evidence and co-operation from them when carrying out our inquiries. I am glad to know that the other place is

1419
taking steps to afford Members of the European Parliament higher status in their affairs. The House has heard from my noble friend Lady Elles, and your Lordships know of the high quality in everything that she does. Our country as a whole does not understand how well we are served by our representatives in the European Parliament.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset, perhaps I may, as a new boy, congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard. He is a friend in every sense of the word and I was delighted to sit next to him this afternoon and hear his remarkable maiden speech. I congratulate too the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins upon initiating the debate on this important issue. Like him, I suppose that I should enter into a confessional, which is a term of art when it comes to European Community affairs, but somewhat different from the confession that he made. I readily confess that my views have drifted apart from those of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. They are based on my experience before I became a commissioner and on that gained during the four years that I held the office. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on his important appointment. I am sure that the House recognises that he will shoulder his burdens with the skill and sincerity for which he is so respected in this House and elsewhere.
Like other noble Lords I agree that this is a timely debate. It takes place against the backcloth of the seismic changes that have occurred in Eastern Europe. Those changes clearly challenge so many of the assumptions on which out post-war policies were built. The debate enables us to reflect on the kind of Community that we wish to see constructed and on the pace of that construction. It also provides us with the opportunity to consider, albeit briefly, the recommendations of the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the operation of the Single European Act and the Government's response to it. I am bound to say that I found that feeble and unconvincing.
Against that backcloth the advice of the Government appears to be to go slow on European Community integration. Some say "Let us wait for the new burgeoning democracies of Eastern Europe to be able to clamber on board the Community". I believe that that is profoundly bad advice, but I shall return to the point later. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in saying that the Government also appear to say, "Let us ignore some of the objectives, even some of the legal duties, that have been prescribed by the Single European Act".
That appears to be the message that was preached by the Prime Minister even before the recent events which took place in Eastern Europe. But it is a message that is essentially rejected by other members states. They believe that it is vital that we should continue to strengthen the existing Community, make it more efficient, more democratic, more accountable, and more cohesive, so that it can offer a vision of greater prosperity and a sense of greater community to the peoples of Eastern Europe who
1420
look to the Community as the main architect for planning the European structures of the future. I cannot believe that they would wish to see a Community enfeebled by delay as we simply wait on events.
Therefore, while other member states call for progress on political union, currency union, the implementation of the concepts envisioned by the social charter, progress on environmental policies built upon the principles of the new chapter in the Single European Act, the Government essentially stand apart—ever the awkward partner. I regret some of the arguments which the Prime Minister has relied on from time to time in order to justify that stance. I believe that not only do those arguments trivialise the important issues that we face but they cause great offence to people in the institutions of Europe because they are trivial and because they are wrong.
I wish to exemplify what I mean. Recently the Prime Minister even invoked the monarchy: the monarchy might be threatened by the developments which are happening in the European Community. There she is standing firm to protect the monarchy. It seems to have escaped her notice that five other member states have monarchies. I have seen no evidence—not a scintilla of evidence—to suggest that any of them has a desire to abolish its royal family. She says that what is happening today is a movement towards an indentikit Europe. That is not a view which is shared by other members of the Community. They see their contribution as an important part of sharing responsibilities and creating a new sense of sovereignty for the Community itself.
Then there are the pejorative descriptions affecting the socal charter; for example, the suggestion that it was born out of neo-Marxist ideas. Anybody having a brief look at the social charter, whatever criticisms one may make of it, would find that a rather inexplicable and absurd view to take. Indeed, it is deeply insulting to those Right-wing leaders of governments in Europe who have embraced the concept of the social charter.
Of course, it ignores the fact that the changes to come out of the establishment of the internal market will not be secured—and they are important changes which can enrich the Community—if progress is not made on issues like equal pay; the right to permanent training and equal treatment for all workers, especially women; protecting the interests of workers in their workplace; and indeed, the participation of the workforce in decisions which affect its members' working life.
Perhaps I may quote the words of the president of the Community, Jacques Delors, who said:
"This Europe also needs clear rules and respect for the law. While we are trying to pool our efforts, it would be unacceptable for unfair practices to distort the interplay of economic forces. It would be unacceptable for Europe to become a source of social regression, while we are trying to rediscover together the road to prosperity and employment".
I do not believe that it is right that Mrs. Thatcher really fears a federalist Europe. I believe she fears a socially progressive Europe. In my view, it is not that she fears that Britain will be run by the Brussels

1421
bureaucracy but rather that Britain and the Community will not be run according to her precepts, which I readily acknowledge she holds very sincerely.
However, for the Prime Minister, the internal market concept was originally envisaged as an exercise in a massive European-wide deregulation while, for others in the Community, it is potentially an exercise in social solidarity. For her, it is to be a common market and for them—and I use the words of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn—it is to be a European Community in the full sense of that term.
Yesterday I noticed that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Ridley had decided to intervene in the debate. I worry about many of his interventions and sometimes I worry also about his non-interventions. I wonder whether some of his words might embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, because, according to the Financial Times, he said that:
"governments could opt out of EC arrangements, depending on national instincts or economic circumstances".
He suggested that:
"there could be regional groupings within the overall union within which France and Germany could form a closer alliance if they wished".
That is a view which I think is profoundly dangerous.
What are we to make of that intervention? Is it the obiter dictum of yet another semi-detached Minister or is it the view of the Government? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that issue at the end of the debate. However, in my judgment, that view—that we should have a two-speed Europe—is not only dangerous for the Community but is profoundly dangerous for this country.
Regrettably, in the main, my submission is that the Government's response to the foreign affairs committee's report corroborates Mr. Ridley's approach. There is not a word about the significance of the new chapter on the environment in the Single European Act. There is not a word about the provisions on social policy which impose legal obligations on the Commission to promote proposals for the upward harmonisation of working conditions and also to promote the concept of maximising consensus.
It is a remarkable case of selective amnesia, because, after all, the Government subscribed to the whole of the Single European Act. When the Prime Minister attended a NATO summit not very long ago, I recall that she complained that some member states were reneging on that to which they had subscribed their names. She said:
"When you sign up to something, you sign up, you sign up!"
What about the Single European Act?
What of accountability? That is the essence of greater democracy in the Community. It is precisely so as to confront the fear, real or imagined, that civil servants rather than elected politicians will take decisions that we must tackle this question of the democratic deficit. That is why I believe that we need to consider urgently whether majority voting should become a routine procedure in the Council of Ministers, not confining the issue simply to matters affecting the internal market. The secrecy
1422
surrounding decision making within the Council of Ministers needs to be carefully eliminated.
I believe with (he noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, that the European Parliament must be taken seriously and, therefore, that the powers of the only elected body in the constellation of Community institutions—the European Parliament—need to be enhanced. I say that not because I believe that there is any question of replacing the powers of national parliaments but because it is necessary to complement them. I believe also that the European Commission should be elected by the European Parliament from candidates who are proposed by the Council of Ministers. There are many other changes which I should like to see as regards the powers of the parliament, particularly on initiating legislation.
However, when it comes to the question of accountability, it is somewhat ironic that the Government have made some very interesting observations at paragraph 17. They say that agreed legislation should be implemented and enforced. My only wish is that they had done that rather more readily in relation to certain directives affecting the environment on which we read the other day in our newspapers that they have engaged in a calculated attempt to frustrate laws for which they themselves have been responsible.
I believe passionately in getting ahead with Europe, in building it safely and in making sure that it can be an example to those developing democracies of Eastern Europe. I believe that it is important that we should sustain our own democratic rights. I can think of no better way of doing that than enshrining the European Convention of Human Rights in the Community treaties.
About most of those vitally important issues, save for the question of ensuring that the European Court should have greater powers—and I totally agree with the Government about that—the Government are silent. A French writer once said that history does not allow us to abstain. My only wish is that the Government, for the short time which they have left to them, should follow that dictum.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords;, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. However, I am conscious that I am the fourth former member of the European Commission to address the House in this debate, and although kindly remarks have been made about us, I fear that I may be beginning to strain the general tolerance of the House.
I wish to confirm myself to one general point and one more specific point about the so-called principle of subsidiarity. We are all very much aware in holding this debate that we have the privilege of living in momentous historic times. As the Soviet bloc is breaking up into its national and nationalist units, within the European Community we are moving towards greater integration, both economic and political.

1423
I believe that the movement within the European Community is irreversible. I also believe that, if anything, it is bound to be speeded up by events in Eastern and Central Europe. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who is no longer in his place, that there is no question of creating a Western European superstate. By far the best way in which we in Western Europe can make a contribution, and perhaps restore some of our former influence in affairs, towards East and Central Europe, where there are going to be times of great difficulty, is by creating the maximum unity among ourselves.
The European Community at the moment is led principally by France and Germany. Indeed, since it was the Franco-German quarrel, which cost Europe so much blood, and its reconciliation which lie at the heart of the European Community, that is only proper. However, over a number of years it has been unfortunate that the United Kingdom has not felt able to play its full and proper role alongside France and Germany in the leadership of the European Community. That is bad both for Europe's sake and for Britain's.
When I was in the European Commission, a wise old Dutchman said to me during the very early days of British membership, "There are two nations within the European Community which make great difficulties for the rest of us by looking after their national interests within the Community. One is France and the other now is the United Kingdom". He went on to say, "There is, however, a difference in the way they play their hands. In France's case, if France is looking after what she regards as a major national interest, she is inclined to say 'Anybody who disagrees with us is betraying the future construction of Europe'. In the British case, when you are looking after your interests you are inclined to say, 'This is the rest of Europe putting us at a disadvantage'".
Those were wise remarks, made perhaps some 15 years ago, and, sadly, I think they have remained true almost until today. I say "almost" because, like other Members of your Lordships' House, we were impressed by much of what the Minister said. Perhaps we can take it as a sign that there is going to be a more positive contribution from the British Government to the developments now taking place within the European Community. As has been said by other speakers, we are inclined in the United Kingdom to distrust the Cartesian grand design that is part of the intellectual make-up of the mainland of Europe. We are supposed here, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, to be apostles of empiricism and pragmatism.
I am getting into my anecdotage, but I remember perhaps one of the greatest of our diplomats who helped to bring Britain into the European Community, the late Sir Con O'Neill, telling me as I set off for Brussels: "In Brussels you are going to learn lessons in pragmatism you never dreamt of in the Fabian Society". That is one of the things we sometimes fail to realise about the real nature of the way the European Community works. The way forward to economic, monetary and political union.
1424
of necessity, will be a pragmatic one: it will be a gradualist way forward and a step-by-step one.
What is tremendously important for us to realise is that for a group of ancient member states such as we have in the European Community to make the great changes that are involved in economic, monetary and political union, it is necessary for us to have a vision of the goal ahead in order to have the necessary commitment to tackle the difficult empirical steps to reach that goal.
My second point is that the more progress is made towards greater economic and political unity in the Community, the more important will become this so-called principle of subsidiarity. It is one of the more ghastly Community jargon words, which is perhaps comparable with the word "additionality", used in my day. I take it to mean the principle that you should not seek to do at Community level what is better done at national level. There is a corollary to the principle that governments who enunciate it sometimes forget: it is also better to do at the regional or local level—or sometimes not to do at all—something which it is sought to do at the national level. I think that the Government are sometimes guilty of interpreting the principle of subsidiarity in that rather limited way.
However, I have some sympathy with the Government's view about this. It is true that the European Commission and the European Parliament are sometimes both tempted to seek to harmonise national habits in areas which are best left alone. We can all feel some sympathy for the Members of the European Parliament. They are all keen to make the contribution to the building of a European Community, and I think they sometimes find it a frustrating business to make progress. Sometimes they seem to promote matters that involve expenditure without having the direct responsibility for raising the necessary taxation to meet that expenditure.
Just as the historic principle of no taxation without representation is a sound one, I think it is probably equally true to say that the rights of representation without the responsiblities for taxation have their dangers. Therefore I support what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was saying about the need to have in mind moving forward towards giving the European Parliament some tax-rasising powers of its own.
The main point that I want to make to the Government is that in enunciating the principle of subsidiarity, which I believe will become more and more important as the move towards integration goes forward, it is important that it should not be used as a protectionist device, rather as the French are doing at present over the import of British beef, to resist (as my noble friend has just said) the very necessary and widely supported Community progress towards a Community social policy or towards an environmental policy. The Government should not declare that things cannot take place at Community level because the institutions are not yet sufficiently accountable.
The wise reaction to that situation is to seek with positive enthusiasm ways and means of making the institutions more accountable. The truth is, as my

1425
noble friend Lord Ezra said, that national sovereignty in some of its most important aspects is rather a myth these days. It has either been pooled or eroded by the realities of modern international life. We have pooled our sovereignty over the most crucial aspect—national defence—in a way which makes it difficult to argue that democratic accountability had been fully met before we took that very necessary step.
Equally of course, the present monetary situation in Europe and in the international community as a whole means that another crucial aspect of sovereignty is deeply eroded. Therefore the question is how one can organise things so as to share sovereignty sensibly. I think it is that question which we should approach in the most positive manner possible.
I do not fully understand the fears expressed about the dangers to national identity involved in moving forward at the fastest practicable pace towards greater integration. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, there is no question of even seeking to create in the European Community any kind of single state. We in the United Kingdom have for 250 years had an economic, monetary union and political union; but I have not noticed that as a result my noble friend has become noticeably less Welsh or that I for my part have become noticeably less Scottish. The national identity argument is very much a red herring. What we want—it is in the best interests of all of us—is to make a success, and to have a major British contribution towards making a success, of the present welcome movement forward of the European Community.
The Minister said that the Government want a strong Community. We were all glad to hear him say that so very clearly. The best way to obtain a strong Community is for the British Government to show a positive enthusiasm for seeking that goal and then to join in shaping the historic changes that lie ahead which will affect us as they will every other nation in Western Europe.
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am always glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, speaking about greater economic and political integration in Europe. I was also glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I was on the Budget Committee in the 1970s and I listened to him then with great interest. He made a most interesting and entertaining maiden speech today. I think we can assure him that it was not too controversial. I am also always glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. We are all old friends. We may not be old friends in the parliamentary sense, as those I have mentioned seem largely to be on the other side of the House, but nevertheless they are old friends; as indeed is my noble friend Lady Elles on this side of the House.
I am pleased to note the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to and progress on the completion of at least Stage 1 of the Delors proposals as well as the single market. I cannot emphasise too much how important I believe it is that we should
1426
achieve exchange rate stability for our exporters and, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, our tourists.
I look forward to the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union which is due to take place at the end of this year. I hope that it will be followed by a second conference to discuss political union. I greatly welcomed the stirring speech of my noble friend Lord Aldington on that subject. I am glad to hear that he is chairman of this ad hoc committee. We look forward with the greatest of interest to reading its report.
In regard to monetary union—the famous EMU—which should follow Britain's adoption of the exchange rate mechanism, I am inclined to endorse the views of the European Commission and particularly those of our former commissioner, my noble friend Lord Cockfield. Moreover, if we adopt wider use of the European currency unit—the ecu; and I certainly support the Government's initiative in issuing ecu-denominated Treasury bills—this would, I believe, be a considerable money saver. I think many of my noble friends, as well as several noble Lords opposite, agree with me in that respect. It is to be hoped that Britain will join the exchange rate mechanism later this year.
I do not consider that the possible loss of sovereignty by being full members of the European monetary system should worry us unduly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in that regard. If we had been full members of the ERM earlier it would have been advantageous to this country both in regard to inflation and interest rates. I should certainly not oppose a closer relationship between sterling and the deutschmark; nor, indeed, to the establishment of a European banking system of central banks—not just one central European bank but the system as it has been enunciated. As I said, in regard to sovereignty our present membership of the EC has meant that we have lost some sovereignty. That also applies, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, to our membership of NATO and even the United Nations and its various agencies; and especially to the IMF, to say nothing of some other international organisations.
I should like to say at this point that, apart from possibly the delaying stance of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on becoming full members of the European monetary system, I agree very much indeed with her policies in other spheres. In Europe she is certainly a strong advocate of the single European market, which comes into effect in 1992, and of complying with EC directives, in which Britain leads the other 11 member states. My noble friend Lady Elles made a good related point on that.
The Government have made it clear that Britain will join the ERM when our level of inflation is considerably lower, when there is more freedom of capital and financial services in the Community and when more progress has been made on the completion of the single market. Though considerable progress has been made, not all the conditions have been met. There is no question of that and I defend the Government, but we cannot delay indefinitely. Untimately we must carry European integration forward into a permanent political, economic and monetary association.

1427
General de Gaulle was, and M. Mitterrand is, an Anglophile and would not wish Britain to withdraw from the Community. The French want Britain as a part of Europe and are glad that she supports the single European market. Perhaps because of being half French I am not unsympathetic to the views of M. Delors, President of the European Commission, or of President Mitterrand, whom I knew when I was in the British embassy in Paris after the Second World War. Both, I think, seek greater European political and economic union which might ultimately lead to at least a kind of loose confederation. I know that some people in Britain do not favour any kind of European federation. I wonder whether we could not have a similar confederation as that in Canada, though much more complicated. M. Rocard, the French Prime Minister, has spoken about building one European nation and there is no doubt that many French people would like to see France as leader of a European super-puissance and not leave it mainly to a unified Germany to play that role.
Now that following the Ottawa summit the two Germanics and four wartime allies have agreed the principle of German unification, the pace of change may well be swifter than could have been foreseen only a few years ago. In my view the main concerns over German unification are the guaranteeing of the Polish-German border—namely, the acceptance of the Oder-Neisse line—and the sensitivities and interests of other European states, as well as whether a unified Germany should be a member perhaps both of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It will be interesting to hear the results of the present Warsaw Pact meeting which is starting today.
Like some in the White House in Washington (I have recently been in America) I find this latter concept of a unified Germany being a member of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact somewhat difficult to contemplate, certainly at present. Yet I do not believe that a unified Germany will prove a threat to the West. However, as I have said, we must wait and see what results from the present Warsaw Pact meeting.
Nonetheless, I would rather see a CSCE—a conference on security and co-operation in Europe—as the basis for a new pan-European structure. As I said recently in my address to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, there are various alternatives. First, there is the EC, which came into being in Rome in 1957. There is also the Council of Europe, which was born considerably earlier in Strasbourg in 1949. As we know, the EC has 12 member states, while the Council of Europe, which meets, like the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, is a 23-nation body.
The Council of Europe, though perhaps best known for its work on human rights and broadcasting standards, now sees an opportunity to expand its role. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Elles mentioned that. We must also not forget, as some of your Lordships have mentioned, other organisations such as the European Court of Justice and the European Investment Bank, to say nothing of the other European agencies concerned with space
1428
and the environment. All these organisations are playing useful roles.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe started in Helsinki in 1972. In Ottawa recently my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke of using the CSCE as a launch-pad for a new secretariat to arbitrate on likely new problems of borders and minorities. I understand that the Council of Europe is somewhat sniffy, if there is such a word, about the 35-nation CSCE, which includes the United States of America and Canada.
I believe that the Council of Europe thinks that it would not be the correct basis for creating a kind of confederation of European states. How well I remember Coudenhove Kalergi's thoughts on European union before the Second World War and Winston Churchill's advocacy of it at the end of the war. If the pan-European movement had taken off in the 1930s, we might well have avoided the horrors of the Second World War. NATO came into being in 1949. I think that it is also sceptical of the CSCE. All these alternatives must be considered.
Some are touting NATO as an all-embracing European body. The new Secretary-General of NATO, Herr Manfred Woerner, certainly seems set, as some of us were in the past, on implementing Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty concerned with its non-military role. I think that Herr Woerner has had meetings with the Czech Foreign Minister about this and he is visiting the USSR.
I presided over the Soviet Ambassador in London about a week ago. I was interested to hear him say that Mr. Gorbachev is seriously contemplating a confederation or a kind of commonwealth of nations of the 15 Soviet republics. Some Eastern, or perhaps I should say Central, European countries might also join the WEU or EFTA, which is the European Free Trade Association that started in Stockholm in 1960. I think that these are organisations of the past. However, as we know, an international body seldom disappears altogether.
1 believe that these various alternatives should be borne in mind. I shall be interested to know what my noble friend Lord Brabazon thinks of the alternatives and which Western European grouping or groupings he thinks it would be appropriate for democratic Eastern European states to join in the first place.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said about Austria. I imagine that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lord Brabazon must be exploring these various possibilities. I shall be interested to know their preliminary views. With Eastern Europe in such a state of flux it must be difficult to conceive when it will be possible to negotiate the entry of the Eastern European countries into any one of these organisations.
At all events, I hope that an enlarged democratic Europe will become united. What with America's budget deficit and vast trade deficit as well as many other problems—the disastrous failure of perestroika in the USSR and the decline and possible disintegration of the Soviet empire—it seems that a larger united Europe of, say, 500 million people

1429
could well become world leader in partnership with the United States of America and Canada in the next century.
As the newly re-elected President of the European-Atlantic Group, it is a solution on these lines that I would like to see.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Richard on his maiden speech and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on introducing this debate, I cannot help remarking that the speech of the Minister was very much more precise in detail than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, rightly mentioned the fact that this year negotiations are going forward for a combined economic zone between the EFTA countries—which are Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria and Switzerland—and the EC. The essence of that agreement would be that the EFTA countries would accept the genuine commercial rules of the 1992 so-called single market but that they would not have to swallow the protectionist common agricultural policy or the legislative rigidities imposed from Brussels on EC members at the present time.
That is not merely an arrangement which would have suited the United Kingdom ideally, had we had had the sense and patience to wait for it, but it might well suit some of the independent East European countries which may not like the protectionism and expense of the CAP. Having newly escaped the intrusion of Moscow into their internal affairs they may wish not to substitute for that any similar intrusion from Brussels. Indeed, a larger and looser economic zone has real attractions for many people in many parts of Europe.
It is paradoxical, when this spirit of independence and liberation is spreading so vigorously in central and Eastern Europe, that Brussels should still be hankering after further centralism and the imposition of even more hard and fast rules from the centre which it describes under the vague name of "union". How is it that this outdated centralism still survives? Perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I too may indulge in an anecdote. I well remember hearing the message expounded by M. Monnet in a three-hour private conversation in 1952 and again in 1962. That message, which he preached with such extraordinary fervour and persistence for 30 or so years, was in essence threefold. First, the great objective for all of us was the prevention of another war between France and Germany. Secondly, this could be achieved only by tying down a possibly resurgent Germany in a firm political and legislative group of some kind. Thirdly, the required union could be achieved only by a series of nominally functional and economic agreements which would conceal the real objective of loss of national independence. This point was referred to earlier this afternoon. It is fully understandable that M. Monnet, with his Alsace-Lorraine background, should have made these assumptions in 1945 and the years immediately afterwards, but they are in my view largely out of date and no longer valid today.
1430
First, the hard fact is that nothing has been more improbable in post-1945 Europe than a new Franco-German war, and nothing is more improbable today. Secondly, now that we are faced with a Germany of 80 million people and the strongest economy in Europe, so far from the EC tying down the Germany of the future, it is far more likely, and perhaps inevitable, that Germany will increasingly tie down the rest of the EC. Thirdly, the attempt to impose political centralisation by stealth has not merely involved what amounts to deception of the ordinary electorate of this and other countries, who, after all, also have a right to self-determination, but has led to a series of economic measures—from the CAP to the EMS—whose aim was not really economic at all.
One example was the Single European Act. Its actual effect was to transfer more power to Brussels. It is doubtful whether it will have any great economic effect. The latest example is the EMS and the propaganda about the single currency. Again, the motive behind this is not economic policy but the obsession with centralising more power in Brussels or, in some people's minds, even in some EC central bank.
From the point of view of economic policy, for the United Kingdom, with an over-valued currency, a weak economy caused by the mistakes of the 1970s and a large overseas payments deficit, to adopt a fixed over-valued exchange rate would be to ignore most of the lessons of the past 60 years in this sphere of policy. As a country we have thrown away the power to control imports, capital exports, the level of incomes and government purchases. No way is left to cure a payments deficit in the short or even medium term except by letting the exchange rate move to its natural level. To throw that power away, as some people lightheartedly seem disposed to do without following the argument, is to condemn the British economy to both chronic payments deficit and, probably, rising unemployment. We are asked to do all this in the name of what is described, in yet another attempt to confuse the electorate, as some undisclosed form of political union.
Those who advocate this—in this respect I agree with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, although not with his speech—should say precisely what they mean. The noble Lord should define his policies as clearly as the Minister did. Of course we all agree that this country should be active and wholehearted in genuine international organisations. But, if it is suggested—this is the crux of the matter—that the realities of self-government and national independence, the power of legislation, taxation and control of economic and defence policy should be taken out of the hands of the British electorate and handed over to someone else, we are faced with an entirely different proposition. Then there would be at stake not just the rights of Parliament but the rights of the electorate. It is not just a question of the legal conception of sovereignty but the reality of self-government and self-determination which we are all so busy recommending to Lithuania, Latvia, Namibia, South Africa and many other countries.

1431
I imagine that no one in this Chamber or in another place would like to see a world in which Britain had ceased to be an independent self-governing country and presumably no longer a member of the United Nations while all manner of other countries which I need not now retail remained independent and members of the United Nations. But, if that is so, the time has come for people to say so fairly explicitly and fairly audibly. In the words of the Motion, they should define in a more precise shape what they mean and how far they would go or not go.
One thing is certain. Neither government nor Parliament has the right to deprive the British electorate of these fundamental powers without the explicit consent of the voters themselves. It is rather remarkable that in this fairly long debate no one has mentioned the British electorate; yet we are talking virtually about altering the British constitution. In that connection it is worth remembering some of the promises and assurances that were given when decisions were taken about this matter both by Parliament and by the electorate in the 1970s.
When the House of Commons first voted on EC entry in 1971 it was given the following promise by Mr. Heath's White Paper of that year. It stated:
"There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty".
In the referendum of 1975 the electorate voted on the basis of the following assurance from the Labour Government's pamphlet distributed to all voters. It stated that in Brussels,
"the Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or new tax if he considers it to be against British interests".
It went on to state:
"The movement in the Common Market towards economic and monetary union … could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed".
The pamplet from the organisation of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and others, of which I think he was the chairman, which argued on the "yes" side of the referendum said that, in the Community:
"All decisions of any importance must be agreed by every member".
Those are the solemn assurances upon which the country voted in 1975.1 do not think that we should just cynically cast them aside or dishonour them, particularly when most of us are preaching self-determination and democracy to the rest of the world. The British electorate has not voted that Britain should cease to be an independent, self-governing country. Therefore, whatever our personal views may be, neither the Government nor Parliament has any right to give away any more realities of independence without the specific and explicit consent of the electorate.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is difficult to try to sum up the whole range of opinions expressed in this debate. I shall certainly not try to do so. It is especially difficult as I am following the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who expressed a view which is certainly
1432
at variance with that of the majority of those who have spoken. He expressed his view with characteristic clarity and honesty. It seems to me that the arguments he made show that there is, as it were, a flat disagreement between the point of view which he holds and that which I and other noble Lords have expressed during the course of the debate. I think that I am right in saying that he hankers after, as other people do, a free trade area rather than a European Community, which has and always has had profound political implications.
I disagree with the noble Lord in his view that the electorate of this country has been deceived by M. Monnet or that he ever concealed that he saw his strategy of a functional approach through economic measures to a political end as one which it was right to pursue in the circumstances in which he found himself. I do not think that we would ever have denied that fact. I do not think that anyone who was interested in the European Coal and Steel Community or the European movement at that time was in any doubt about the situation.
However, the noble Lord has a point that the question of sovereignty was in some respects fudged. In this connection I must point out that the old Liberal Party, which was the first party to propose that we should join the European Community, never fudged the issue. It always made it absolutely clear that a substantial loss of sovereignty was involved in any such change in the status of this country. But I think that the noble Lord has returned to an issue which has run through the whole of our debate this afternoon. Our debate has been returning again and again to the question of sovereignty, about which there has been, in the words of my noble friend Lord Jenkins, persistent misunderstandings. The issue has also given rise to psychological difficulties. When people say that we must change our attitude, one of the attitudes which I think we should change is our attitude toward sovereignty.
When I was preparing my speech for the debate I thought that the best description of the situation in which we now find ourselves was expressed by Sir Ralph Dahrendorf in his Brandon Rhys Williams Memorial Lecture. He came to four conclusions. The first was that in the absence of a world order it was important to create a zone of stability in Europe, not merely because of economic and monetary reasons or for trade reasons, but also for more general political reasons.
Given the events which are occurring and those which have occurred in Eastern and Central Europe and in Russia, the need for a zone of stability in Western Europe is self-evident. In addition, because of the absence of a world order, Sir Ralph Dahrendorf said:
"We therefore need an optimum of European co-operation in areas of policy in which sovereignty has long left national shores and borders".
The central point which so many people refuse to accept is that national sovereignty has already slipped through the fingers of national government. He continued:
"Europe 1992 is a step in the right direction, especially if it remains open for the wider European Economic Space and for post-communist Europe.

1433
But the 1992 project must be followed by a deepening of the institutions.
The third point Sir Ralph made in conclusion was that economic and monetary union involves a real loss of sovereignty. He said that if we had, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, suggested we might have, defence co-operation—a common European defence policy and a common European foreign policy—that would mean a further overt loss of sovereignty. But as he pointed out, and as I have already said, sovereignty is already losing its relevance in any case. As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked, who controls the flow of capital in the world today? What exactly is national defence in the nuclear world? What sovereign decision-maker controls the environment?
Finally, Sir Ralph Dahrendorf concluded that:
"the choices before modern countries in this condition are stark and simple. They can either remain bystanders, at or beyond the fringe of the new centres of gravity, in which case they will become satellites, or in the worst case, forgotten islands of decline, or they can be active participants in the attempt to shape, with others, the institutions of the future".
It seems to me that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was saying. In other words, in order to control our destiny we had better play a full part as active participants in the work of the European Commission. That is the conclusion I have drawn. It is through our commitment to the European Community that we can best influence our destiny.
In point of fact we are committed to Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said in his promising but not patronising speech. When I say "promising" I mean promising in that it seemed to me to indicate a change of attitude. As he reiterated, we are committed to Europe by our signature to the Treaty of Rome and by the passage of the Single European Act. However, what we have failed to do—and this is apparent from a whole series of speeches by noble Lords—is to commit ourselves with any appearance of enthusiasm. We have failed to commit ourselves wholeheartedly. Our response to initiatives has too often been no, whereas as Sir Leon Brittan said, it should have been "Yes, but".
I agree with other noble Lords that the communique which came from the Dublin summit showed a welcome change. But, as other noble Lords have said, it is truly unnecessary in these circumstances to put up Aunt Sallies in order to knock them down. No one is proposing to abolish the monarchy. All the other members of the European Community have Parliaments which are jealous of their powers. But political and monetary union are genuine objectives which must be taken seriously and we must take our part in the process. Who doubts now that if we had joined the ERM when my noble friend Lord Jenkins first proposed that or had done so on a number of occasions since then, it would have been a good thing?
The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that, because the City is wrong about short-term ism, we should not take its advice about the ERM, is reasoning which I do not fully follow. Because someone is wrong about one thing, it does not mean that they are wrong about everything. Economic and monetary union will follow the
1434
implementation of the Single European Act. When that happens we shall have to develop institutions to control the arrangements which will inevitably follow and accompany that process.
That leads one straight to the question of how the democratic deficit is to be filled. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that one of the things required is that the proceedings of the Council of Ministers should be opened up to the public. The meetings should not be held in private. We should not be presented with conclusions which have been reached we know not how. It also means of course that the powers of the European Parliament should be strengthened. The Prime Minister's answer to the question of the democratic deficit is that the best Europe we can build is a Europe of 12 sovereign states sitting freely and willingly together. That was also the theme of the Bruges speech, which was little more than a plea that we should return to EFTA rather than develop the European Community—a hope which neglects the fact that it is members of EFTA who are queueing up to join the European Community and not members of the Community who are queueing to join EFTA. The same theme was recently repeated in a speech by Mr. Tebbit in which he argued with characteristic perversity that an EC which moved towards further political integration would be likely to provoke a resurgence of German nationalism.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, there has been the extraordinary speech by Mr. Ridley which was reported in the Financial Times today, in which he suggests that governments could opt out of the European Community arrangements depending upon national instincts or economic circumstances. That is a new government policy. The Minister must explain what it implies, because it undermines the policies which he expressed, or I understood him to express, in his opening speech, and which his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary expressed in the speech in Paris earlier this month which was referred to earlier.
The formula—this is the point that I wish to make—of 12 sovereign states sitting together is an inaccurate description of the Community as set forth in the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. By signing the Treaty of Rome and passing the Single European Act, we ceased in certain respects to be a sovereign state in the sense in which the Prime Minister suggests. That is something which people must accept. It lies at the heart of the idea of the European Community. In addition, we have now accepted economic and monetary union. We have accepted qualified majority voting. They are all limitations on our national sovereignty.
The posture adopted by the Prime Minister has another disadvantage. It fails to offer a constructive alternative to proposals put to us from M. Delors or Presidents Kohl and Mitterrand. Because of that posture, and because we refuse to define the route along which we are proceeding, or our destination, we have lost control of the agenda. The agenda is in the hands of and composed by others. Again and again we find ourselves responding, apparently negatively, to the initiatives of others and to an

1435
agenda set by others. The latest example of that is of course the Kohl/Mitterrand statement of 12th April.
The post-war years were dominated politically and militarily by two superpowers and economically by the United States. The Gorbachev revolution has shifted that balance of power radically in favour of the West. We can foresee a smaller US military presence, growing pressure on NATO countries to contribute more to their own defence and greater European influence on NATO's policies. At the same time, political co-operation with the European Community is becoming slowly established and the European Community will become, in the words of a statement from the State Department on the 22nd,
"An important political factor in the world with which the United States wishes to have a formal relationship".
Thus, should the USSR survive and hold together—I should like to reinforce the description given by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of the condition in Central and Eastern Europe and the USSR as being extremely fragile—we shall be living in a tripolar world politically, and with the establishment of monetary union, either London or Frankfurt will become the third centre of financial power with New York and Tokyo.
Those are huge changes which would probably have happened anyway but which are being hastened by the Gorbachev revolution. I hope that within the development of the momentous events which follow that revolution this country will not remain a bystander at or beyond the fringes of the new centres of gravity or that it will become a satellite or a forgotten island but will be an active participant, shaping with others the institutions of the future.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing his Motion. It is an opportune Motion at an opportune time, as many noble Lords have said. It has also given us the opportunity to hear from a number of distinguished former members of the Commission, not least my noble friend Lord Richard, who made an eloquent and distinguished maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear much more from him in the future.
We were also glad to hear about the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, as chairman of the committee, and we look forward not just to hearing what the committee has to say about those momentous matters but to participating in discussions with the noble Lord and members of the committee and debating his conclusions in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may return, as did my noble friend Lord Jay, to the terms of the Motion. It is:
"To call attention to the case for Her Majesty's Government taking an active role in seeking to define a more precise shape for future European political and monetary union".
I want to concentrate on the financial side—that is, on economic and monetary union—as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, when opening from these Benches, dealt comprehensively with political union;
1436
not, I have to say, that the two are inseparable. One of the themes that has emerged from the debate is that there is a linkage between economic and monetary union and political union, whatever that, in the end, may mean.
It is impossible to consider economic and monetary union without considering also its political aspects. That is a point which has been made by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in my view put his finger on the point when he talked, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us, of persistent misunderstanding. There has been persistent misunderstanding by a number of people in the United Kingdom of what the Community is about; and also persistent misunderstanding by some of us, if I may say so, of what the Government's position is; because today we had from the Minister a speech which was different in content from contributions we have had from Ministers in the House before.
At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us, we read in the press this morning a contribution from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. So far as I know, he is a Member of the Cabinet and I believe it is proper to quote what he said at some length. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, it goes in a completely contrary direction to what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said earlier. I quote from the article in the Independent this morning which reported Mr. Ridley's speech:
"How far individual member states wished to travel along the road of economic and monetary union would be for them to decide. Could there not be regional groupings within the overall union, as we already have with Benelux or the Schengen group?
"France and Germany could form a closer alliance still if they wished. There could be currency agreements, either of the ERM type or full currency union as envisaged in current plans for European Monetary Union.
"Those who wished could form joint central banks to manage their currencies. But there should be no compulsion on others to join such arrangements".
I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in the starkest possible terms, whether that represents the view of Her Majesty's Government or whether what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said earlier this afternoon represents the Government's view. I hope that when winding up the noble Lord will be quite clear about this, because if not we shall press him until it is clear.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn dealt with political union, and again there is some misunderstanding about what it means. In my view it is not a fixed concept. It is not that there will be supra-national government, federalism. It is not a concept that we either have or do not have. It is not like virginity, where one is either a virgin or not a virgin, we either have political union or we do not. We already have a measure of political union and my noble friend Lord Jay was quite right to point out that the Single European Act of 1986 gave us a substantial measure of political union because, on a qualified majority vote, it gave to the Council of Ministers of the various European authorities power to dictate to Parliament what it should put into legislation in

1437
the United Kingdom. If anything, that is part of a political union.
We should not be too shy about saying that political union is something we cannot accept at all. This Parliament and this House have voted to grant to the European authorities and institutions a significant measure of political union. The question we must ask ourselves now is: will the measures proposed require a cession of sovereignty, an increase in political union beyond that which is tolerable? Here we enter the area of controversy.
I should like to advance to your Lordships three propositions about economic and monetary union, and I pick up a comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The first is that there is a consensus throughout the Community that economic and monetary union will happen. There is no question mark as to whether this will happen; it is how it will happen that is in question. We must first get used to the idea—and most noble Lords are used to it—that it will happen, whether or not we like it. There can be differing views on that subject. I suspect that there is also a consensus in the United Kingdom that it will happen, again whether we like it or not.
My second proposition derives from the first. It is that the Exchange Rate Mechanism is seen, at least by 11 members out of 12 in the Community, as being a halfway house. It is not a final stop. The single market requires a single price. The single price requires some kind of fixed exchange rate mechanism or the best we can obtain under present circumstances.
My third proposition is that in Europe—that is, in the Community—11 out of 12 states perceive political union and European economic and monetary union as going side by side. I wish to start from that base, and we begin with a divergence of views. This is the second matter on which I ask the Minister for clarification. There are two proposals for the structure of a monetary union. There is the common currency proposal which one can call in shorthand, Delors Stage 3; and the UK Treasury proposal, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred in his opening speech.
I can understand it if the Government say that the Treasury method is better than Delors Stage 3 for arriving at monetary union. If they support monetary union, that is presumably what they say. However that is incompatible with the statement that competition between monetary policies in the Community is what the UK Treasury paper is all about. The logical end of the Treasury position—assuming we go to monetary union—is irrevocably fixed exchange rates and monetary policy throughout the Community properly co-ordinated. If we go on a competing monetary policy basis, we shall not get to monetary union.
I ask the noble Lord to be quite clear in his winding up. Which view of the Treasury document do the Government aspire to: monetary union and irrevocably fixed exchange rates; or no monetary union and freely floating exchange rates but competing monetary policies? The two views are not compatible. I ask the noble Lord when he replies which one the Government adopt.
1438
The answer to that question determines the answer to the Government's view of political union. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the Monnet principle is that one starts with something practical with a view to bringing in something political behind its back, if I may interpret what my noble friend Lord Jay said. The Monnet view is exactly what we perceive to be the Delors view. Once we have an institution, a central bank, a common currency, inevitably such an institution will require—through the process of democratic accountability—some further form of political union.
I do not have to remind your Lordships that the United States, in trying to set up a central bank, had two attempts at it before the federal reserve system came into being. The two attempts were failures because there was no political consensus to set up a central banking mechanism. It was only when there was a political consensus that the federal reserve system was made to work and could work.
On the other hand, if one has monetary union but without a central bank, it is possible to look at the monetary union between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Between Irish independence and 1979 there was monetary union between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, but there was no common central bank, no political union. I do not believe that anyone would say that there was any form of political union between ourselves and the Irish during that period, yet it seemed to work reasonably well.
I do not regard that as a good model for the future of Europe because clearly the United Kingdom was dominant in that relationship in monetary terms and therefore the Bank of England could take monetary decisions and the United Kingdom Government could take monetary decisions which were, by the nature of things, extended into Ireland.
I come back to the noble Lord's Motion. The Government must make up their mind. If they say they are in favour of monetary union and of political union, moving the frontiers towards some further cession of sovereignty on an agreed basis, they must make up their mind exactly where they are. Not only that, but they must tell us where they are. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon on one precise matter. I believe that there is a case for a Green Paper setting out what the Government think would be the effect on the United Kingdom of our entry into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. I do not see why the electorate, Parliament and informed opinion should not have the benefit of the Government's views on exactly what will happen. I believe that the Government must be much more open and forthright than they have been up to now in saying what they think about these matters.
I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with reference to the train going to Birmingham via Eastbourne, or possibly getting to Rugby. It is clear that the European express is on the point of leaving the station. How many times it will stop to pick up new passengers, we do not know. How many passengers will want to get off, we do not know. How fast it will go, we do not know. We shall certainly not stop the passengers from arguing as it goes along

1439
about which way it should be going and how fast. Nevertheless, the train is on the move. The idea that we should not be passengers or should have second class seats is not one that should be on the agenda. Equally, to get on the train simply to pull the cord and try to bring it to a shuddering halt is not something that could be seriously advocated, and I hope is not an idea that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, himself would advocate.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn made the point that there was not enough direction from Government on foreign policy generally. I would reinforce that point. I believe that ministerial statements need to be made about where we are going in Europe. It is not just a question of statements, it is a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, of tone. Do the Government embrace this with enthusiasm or do they not?
Perhaps I may tell a short story about President de Gaulle. When he became President of France in 1962 he went to the Elysee. He said that he did not like the Elysee very much, and that he should have liked to go to the Louvre because one cannot make history in the 8th arrondissement. I should like the Government to move, psychologically, from the 8th arrondissement to the 1st arrondissement. I should like them to say where they stand. I know that we do not go in for declaratory politics in the same way as our friends on the Continent of Europe, but from time to time perhaps we should be less shy. If we wish to send out signals to the international community we ought to do so in terms that the international community has learnt to understand.
There may be a case for a government statement about where the Government are going and what we are invited to accept. It is time for the Government to give a lead. It is time for the Government to accept the thrust of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to give us a lead and to tell us and the world what their European policy is and where they intend to take us.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I began my speech this afternoon by making clear why I welcomed this debate. My hopes for it have not been disappointed. We have heard a most distinguished list of speakers, many of them with great experience of European matters. I noted particularly the interesting maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating him.
The thoughtfulness of many of the speeches made today shows precisely why national parliamentary views on the future of the Community must be taken fully into account in the debates on which we are now embarked and why the thread of national parliamentary interest and scrutiny must be woven more extensively into the new institutional fabric of the Community.
Of course I regret that not all of your Lordships have accepted that the Government's approach to these vitally important subjects is the right one. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was the first this afternoon
1440
to challenge our policy. I took the liberty of looking back in his European Diary of the years when he was President of the European Commission to what he was doing 10 years ago, on 6th June 1980.I saw that on that day he gave some friends an outline for a speech he was to make the following week. One of them:
"sensibly was inclined to take the view that if he were me he would say as little as possible, but this was not the view of the others nor at that stage mine".
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, had taken similar advice on this occasion, for I thought his speech uncharacteristically misread the points of principle on which government policy is based and too easily dismissed the core issue of maintaining a balance between national and central powers. In doing so, the noble Lord has failed to understand where the true centre of gravity now lies in the Community on institutional issues and why others, as well as the United Kingdom, place such emphasis on the role of national parliaments in enhancing democratic accountability and, to use the phrase of the French Foreign Minister, the "motor role" of the Council of Ministers in the Community's decision-making.
Perhaps I may set out in greater detail the ideas which the Government have floated in recent weeks on possible institutional change. First, we have advocated the need to improve democratic accountability in the Community. As I have said, there are several ways to do this, but a central element is maintaining or enhancing the accountability of Ministers in the Council to their national parliaments. There has been increased emphasis on this in recent Community discussions.
Only a fortnight ago the Government announced a package of measures designed to improve the effectiveness of the scrutiny arrangements in another place to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred. We should also like to see stronger links between national parliaments and the European Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, attended a valuable meeting last month of the chairmen of scrutiny committees in member state legislatures. We hope that such meetings take place more regularly in the future. I am sure that a number of members of your Lordships' House will be attending the assizes, involving national parliaments in the European Parliament, which will be held in Italy in the autumn. Improved contacts, better procedures, more accountability—that is the essence of the British approach.
Another way of increasing democratic accountability would be to give the European Parliament a greater role in examining the way in which the Community's funds are spent and its decisions carried out. We know from our own history that parliaments derived their strength from two basic functions—the power to legislate and the power to hold the executive accountable for its actions. Some of our partners would like to see the European Parliament's legislative role strengthened. The Single European Act did, however, provide for that. What it did not do, and we should like to remedy the omission, was to encourage Strasbourg to develop the other arm of parliamentary authority.

1441
Improving the Community's efficiency and effectiveness should in our view be a major objective of that exercise. We have suggested that in this regard greater attention needs to be given to improving implementation and enforcement of agreed EC legislation.
A recent Commission report showed that Britain's record in implementing single market measures was best in the Community. Our record in other areas is also good. Unfortunately that of some of our partners is rather uneven. The Government are pleased that many of them are now paying more attention to this. We have also suggested that the Commission should extend the practice of publishing six-monthly reports on implementation of the single market programme into the other major areas of Community activity—transport, telecommunications, industry, agriculture, and the environment.
We think that that would make a difference to Community decision-making. It would narrow the gap between the Europe of phrases and the Europe of facts. It would enhance the Community's international credibility: those who can deliver internally are bound to be taken more seriously on the international stage. It will also ensure that the Community continues to enjoy the support of its own citizens. For if the 1992 dream of bringing down the barriers and creating an even playing field for Europe's citizens and businesses does not come true, our citizens will rightly ask why.
As I have said, a searchlight on implementation can be switched on without any change of treaties, but we have also made clear that the Community should, in addition, consider the more radical step of giving the European Court of Justice and the Commission stronger powers of enforcement. That would mean real sanctions, added to the political and moral force which decisions on non-compliance already enjoy.
We also believe that there is scope for improving the Community's effectiveness in the area of political co-operation and foreign policy co-ordination, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wiedenfeld, referred. Most member states are quite clear that separate national interests are involved which they are not prepared to surrender. We do not quarrel, for example, with the independent action by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl on Lithuania in April. Each of the Twelve has faced occasions when there was a need to pursue distinct national interests, but increasingly the Twelve are speaking together on an increasingly wide range of issues. We shall be examining ways of improving the coherence of the Community's international performance—in capitals, in the work of our embassies abroad and in international bodies.
Finally—this matter was discussed at the Dublin summit in April—we must take a long, hard look at the principle of subsidiarity to which my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred. The Government do not pretend that this will be an easy task, but it is an essential one. There is a widespread concern in the Community to be more precise about the limitation of national and Community areas of activity. That seems
1442
particularly important in a developing Community in order to preserve powers for national governments and national parliaments. We see a fundamental democratic principle at stake here: the need to keep decisions, power and accountability as close as possible to people. So we and our partners will be considering how subsidiarity might be embodied more fully in the treaty. It is already there in embryonic form in provisions dealing with the environment, but what we are talking about now is a more systematic application of the principle.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the remarks made by noble Lords. It was good of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to acknowledge some of his past mistakes, but the Government are not, as he alleged, short on either commitment to or understanding of the Community. We do not think that the Community will become a United States of Europe and we are happy to debate vigorously with those who do. But we have no doubt that the Community has a strong political dimension. It has a central role to play in, for instance, the future of Eastern Europe. The noble Lord is wrong to suggest otherwise. We have both vision and practical ideas, as was demanded of us and of European Governments. So in all three of the noble Lord's examples it is clear that the Government are pursuing an active and committed approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether the Government would support a decision to call an IGC on political union. That is a decision for the Dublin council and it will be taken by a simple majority. We have made clear our willingness to go along with such a decision if our partners want to pursue the debate. The noble Lord implied that at present the European Parliament has no power to amend legislation. It has such a power, as my noble friend Lady Elles explained, but the Belgian paper to which the noble Lord referred goes much further than that and proposes co-decisions between the Parliament and the Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the Commission's paper on EMU and particularly on the need for structural discussions of member states' economies. I agree. Such discussions already take place in the exercise known as multilateral surveillance. Arrangements will be strengthened as part of Stage 1 of EMU, which has been agreed and which begins on 1st July. The Government are ready to agree rules to make participation in those arrangements binding.
My noble friend Lady Elles said that we too often run ourselves down. I entirely agree with her on that point. The UK plays a positive part in the Community and we more often than not find ourselves in the majority. I am not entirely in agreement with my noble friend on the kind of institutional changes proposed. For example, we do not believe that there should be a wholesale extension of the co-operation procedure, but I agree with my noble friend's call for increasing scrutiny of Community legislation, for increasing the financial accountability of the Community and for improvements in European political co-operation.
I listened carefully to the very good maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, drawn from long

1443
experience in the Community and in diplomacy. I should simply point out to him that it was the diplomatic expertise of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister which won us the Fontainebleau abatement to our budget contribution in 1984—an achievement which by the end of this year will have been worth £7-5 billion to the United Kingdom. I hope that that will at least get two cheers from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
I welcomed the ready acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the Government are hard at work at the coal-face of the European Community. I entirely agree that the EC is not just a matter of trade. As I said earlier in the debate, we are committed to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, but in constructing that union it is vital that the principle of subsidiarity is respected.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton—I was grateful to my noble friend for his kind words about my earlier remarks—spoke of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The Government's overall aim in their policy on Eastern Europe is to support and encourage the political and economic reform process in those countries and thus to increase European stability and security. On the question of enlarging membership of the European Community, we and our Community partners are agreed that association agreements should be the next stage in our relations with Central and Eastern European countries. Such agreements will provide an ever closer relationship as political and economic reforms continue in those countries. The question of full EC membership is not one for the immediate future. It is clear that reform must go much further before those countries can meet the obligations of EC membership, but, when they can and if they choose to apply, we should certainly welcome them.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made a characteristically robust speech to which I always enjoy listening. However, I must admit that I do not agree with all that he said. I thank him for his eloquent defence of the Prime Minister's approach to political union and his recognition that the UK makes a significant contribution to the Community's activities. I should perhaps point out to the noble Lord that in financial terms the Federal Republic of Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the Community budget. Our position on the exchange rate mechanism, with which the noble Lord dealt at some length, has been made clear many times, most recently this afternoon in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which was answered by my noble friend the Paymaster General.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for making clear quite how significant were the changes to the Community agreed by the member states with the Single European Act which came into effect so recently and how resilient are the individual characters of each member state. We agree with his view that an active and dynamic united Germany as a member of the Community is an entirely welcome prospect.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aldington for his words about my opening speech. I welcome
1444
the establishment of his ad hoc committee. I note that officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have already given informal evidence to it. Obviously we shall continue to co-operate as much as possible with that committee.
It seems clear to me that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has slightly lost touch with the Community and the United Kingdom's role since he left the Commission 18 months ago. It is absurd to claim on the basis of the Government's reply to the FAC report that the Government are not committed to all aspects of the Single European Act. Of course we are. We are in the lead in the formulation of EC environmental policy. The noble Lord's successor as Environment Commissioner recently published a table of infractions of environmental legislation which showed that the UK had a good record of compliance. Generally, as I have said before, our record on implementation and compliance in the single market and other areas is second to none. We are wholly committed to the social dimension of the EC, but we thought—and we made our feelings clear—that the social charter marked a return to the bad old days of over-regulation, ignoring the top priority of creating new jobs and enhancing competitiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was good enough to give some comparative figures for the movement in unemployment between us and other member states.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked what the Government thought of the possibility of Eastern European countries joining some of the multilateral organisations of Europe. We welcome the interest shown by East Europeans in the Council of Europe and hope that they will become members as they meet the requirements, which are a pluralist democracy and a guarantee of human rights. The applications of some Eastern European countries to join are well advanced, such as those for Hungary Czechoslovakia and Poland, and we expect to see them as members soon. The whole of the united Germany will of course be a member.
The important thing is to integrate the East Europeans via the CSCE, close association with the EC and membership of the Council of Europe into a wider Europe politically and economically. The CSCE will provide a forum at which security arrangements for all 35 can be discussed. Although I agree with the questioning attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, toward centralisation, I could not help thinking that there were aspects of his speech which seemed to ignore some of the lessons of the past 50 or 60 years. I am clear that the noble Lord underestimates the potential benefits to the United Kingdom of the single market and of closer economic and monetary integration.
I dispute the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Community agenda is set by others. We are acknowledged to be among the leaders on the approach, for example, to EC relations with Eastern Europe, on developing relationships with the United States and Japan, on our liberal approach to the GATT-Uruguay round and on the 1992 programme. Even on political union it is clear

1445
that the principles advocated by the United Kingdom are widely accepted in the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and indeed the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to quotations from a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I think it would be unwise of me to comment on selective quotations from a speech which I have not seen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I have a copy here and I shall lend it to him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have time to read through it right now. But for the avoidance of any doubt I can tell noble Lords that the speech which I made this afternoon obviously represents government policy.
Nor do I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is a contradiction in the Treasury EMU paper. We believe that Stage I will lead to increasing convergence. We believe that our evolutionary market-based approach will produce greater monetary stability. At this time I do not propose to go any further, but the Treasury paper means what it says.
To conclude, the United Kingdom is committed to the Community, which is the heart of our foreign policy and central to the United Kingdom's and Europe's future prosperity. The United Kingdom Government have a clear vision of the Community's future. We want it to remain open, liberal, a model for democratic and civilised relationships between advanced countries. We want the Community to be dynamic, responding to the world outside as well as acting as a catalyst for positive change in our Continent and beyond. But we also seek to combine our vision with practical ideas. Our contribution is both to the architecture and the actual construction of the new Europe. We shall not leave the building site or lose interest in the work when the bricks and mortar arrive. And it is because we care about the finished product that we want to close the gap between the Europe of facts and the Europe of fantasies. That is why we shall go on doing what today's Motion enjoins us to do—taking an active role in defining the future shape of the European Community.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am not a great believer in second speeches, particularly now that the hour has reached its present point. As the debate took a constructive and non-polemical tone—which I hoped it would—I do not propose to reply to the Minister's second speech. It was sometimes a little more polemical than his first speech but we thank him very much for the two speeches. I therefore confine myself to thanking the 16 noble Lords who, apart from the government spokesman, took part in the debate.
I should also like to say how much we welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and look forward to the work of his committee. I
1446
congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard on his maiden speech in this House. It was a notable maiden speech. He comes to us with a great record of European service. To the best of my recollection he is indeed the only member of the Labour Party who has ever rebuked me for lack of adequate European fervour. That was in 1968 when he thought that I handled a monetary conference in Bonn without sufficient regard for the European dimension. I was almost tempted to ask him whether he would give me a certificate to the effect that my European fervour was inadequate as it might have been rather useful to me in the Labour Party in subsequent days. I greatly welcome him to this House and congratulate him on his admirable speech. I thank all the participants. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Parliament Electoral Reform Bill [H.L.]
8.16 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
This is a very appropriate moment to move the Third Reading of the Bill. After all, we have been discussing Europe for the whole of this afternoon. This little Bill of mine, which I put before your Lordships on 23rd March, is an attempt to change and reform the way in which Members of the European Parliament are elected. It is designed to provide the European Parliament with the maximum legitimacy and authority. In view of the discussions that we have had this afternoon, in which many noble Lords supposed that greater powers will be acquired by the European Parliament in the future, it is obviously a matter of importance both that it should have the maximum legitimacy and that British membership in that Parliament should be as representative as possible and not as distorted as it is under the present system.
Secondly, the Bill is an attempt to introduce a system that conforms more closely with Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome. That is now being looked at by a committee in Brussels, which, as I understand it, wholly approves of the Bill that I have put before your Lordships.
I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Underbill, is not with us tonight. I understand that he is ill. He conducted a rather difficult operation earlier in the passage of the Bill with the utmost skill and with his customary charm. I hope that he recovers very soon. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords who assisted in the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Bonham-Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
8.19 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Promoted by Associated British Ports, the Bill seeks to develop and improve facilities at three of its ports; namely, Immingham on Humberside, King's Lynn in Norfolk and Port Talbot in South Wales. ABP, as I shall continue to call Associated British Ports, was privatised under the Transport Act 1981. However, it has a statutory duty under that Act to provide such port facilities as it thinks expedient. It is in pursuance of that duty that ABP promotes the Bill which is before your Lordships today.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal first with the technical or drafting amendments that have been passed by the Unopposed Bill Committee of your Lordships' House. At scrutiny by that Unopposed Bill Committee it was appreciated that technical amendments in Clauses 3 and 18 were required, mainly, as I understand it, as a result of changes in legislation since the Bill started its passage through another place in November 1987. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing whatsoever controversial in any of those amendments. I therefore hope and assume that another place will approve them on the nod.
I shall come later to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. However, had it not been for that amendment my speech this evening would have been less than half its present length.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 26th February 1990 I outlined its provisions in some detail. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with so many technicalities today. However, for the benefit of those noble Lords who were unable to be in their places on that earlier occasion I should like to give a brief summary of the Bill's contents.
The improvement sought by ABP at Immingham is the creation of a new facility for a dry bulk cargo berth which would enable more and larger vessels to dock there. The Bill sets out three proposed works needed to effect this. Work No. I comprises a jetty and jetty head. Work No. 2 comprises a secondary jetty to give additional access to the jetty head. Work No. 3 proposes a reclamation landwards to the jetty head to provide additional back-up land. This new jetty head would mean that the size of vessels docking at Immingham would no longer be confined to those which could pass through lock gates. There would also be scope for handling a substantially increased amount of traffic. The effect of the proposed works would be to relieve potential congestion and to enable larger ships to use the port and greatly reduce expensive transhipment at Continental ports.
At King's Lynn, ABP wishes to construct a quay to provide new berths, again enabling more and larger ships to visit the port. The improvements proposed at Port Talbot—a port principally used by British Steel Corporation—are to deepen and lengthen the dredged channel forming the approach
1448
to the tidal harbour so that, again, larger cargoes can be handled. The consent of Parliament to these works that I have outlined is required because the proposed works are to be constructed in tidal waters.
ABP needs to make these improvements in order to maintain the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the UK's port industry. ABP has shown itself to be remarkably successful since its privatisation. Its holding company, ABP Holdings, was floated on the Stock Exchange in 1983, since when its turnover and profitability have increased to the extent that it has achieved the highest growth in quoted share price and market valuation of all the previously state owned enterprises now in the private sector. I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that investments in the developments proposed in the Bill will not involve any recourse to public funds.
During the passage of the Bill in another place, and at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, objections were expressed on the ground of what is generally called the coal issue. In the context of the Bill that effectively meant objection to the proposed new berth at Immingham.
In another place the Bill was referred to a Select Committee which reported by a majority vote that the Bill should be allowed to proceed without amendment. That committee asked for and received an undertaking from ABP that once the new facilities at Immingham were in place ABP would provide another place and the Government with detailed information about steam coal imports.
In your Lordships' House at Second Reading the noble Lords, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Underbill, raised objections to the Bill again on the grounds of the coal issue. Ten petitions had been deposited against the Bill and it was therefore referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, that committee has unanimously reported the Bill to the House without amendment.
The committee's opinion is so well and succinctly set out that I feel I can do no better than quote part of it verbatim in drawing its conclusions to your Lordships' attention. I hope that noble Lords who were members of that Select Committee will forgive me if I take their conclusions slightly out of order.
Paragraph 17 of the special report states:
"So far as the proposed facilities themselves are concerned, the Committee make the further observation that were it not for the coal issue, the Bill would have been unopposed in the House of Lords and would not have come before the Committee at all".
I therefore submit to your Lordships that effectively the only point at issue is with regard to the proposed increase in facilities at Immingham. Indeed, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, seems to support that opinion.
Paragraphs 16 and 18 of the special report say:
"The Committee take the view that the Promoters have duly established a need for their proposed facilities at Immingham. As the Select Committee in the House of Commons stated, Associated British Ports are a reputable company with a proven track record of operating port facilities and Immingham already has a successful and well-managed port. The Committee accept the expert evidence of the Chairman and Managing Director of

1449
AB Ports that there is a demand for further deep water common user dock facilities in the east coast; and they agree that insofar as the proposed facilities may enable Immingham to compete more easily with other European ports they are of national as well as of local and regional importance".
Paragraph 18 states:
"The Committee also agree with the Promoters that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the Bill and the private bill procedure was the proper means for them to seek powers to construct works in tidal waters".
I now deal with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on the question of environmental assessment. I should like first to point out that this aspect of the Bill was considered in depth by the Select Committee. Indeed, the evidence on that subject alone, excluding exhibits, runs to some 22 pages of typescript. Paragraph 10 of the Select Commitee report, which sets out the issue the committee was asked to consider, states:
"The [Coalfield Communities] Campaign also objected to the works at Immingham on environmental grounds. The Promoters, they said, should have prepared and submitted to Parliament an environmental assessment statement in accordance with the relevant European Community Directive (85/337); and the Committee should adjourn until such a statement had been made available. More specifically, the Campaign were much concerned at the potential impact of increased transport of coal by road on the communities near power stations. Accordingly, they proposed an amendment to make it obligatory for coal unloaded at the new facility at Immingham to be transported to the generating stations by rail or barge".
The committee reached the following conclusion in paragraph 19 after listening to the detailed submissions:
"They do not accede to the requests of the Campaign that the Promoters should be obliged to prepare an environmental assessment statement and that the Committee should adjourn for that purpose. Parliament may in due course incorporate a system of environmental assessment into private business standing orders; but at present promoters of bills are under no such obligation. In any event, there were no local objections to the works on environmental grounds".
Paragraph 20 states:
"Likewise, the Committee do not accept the proposed amendment of the Campaign"
—that is, that it should be obligatory for coal unloaded to be transported by rail or barge.
"They agree with the Promoters that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road".
I was tempted to rest the case there as I am in complete agreement with the conclusions of the Select Committee which had the advantage of detailed argument and a wealth of facts before it. Nonetheless, the amendment will, I assume, be tabled, albeit at a somewhat later stage. I must reiterate the arguments against it.
The general question of environmental assessment is governed by EC Directive (85/337), implemented by Circular 15/88 entitled Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects Regulations 1988.)
In 1989 the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office produced a book entitled, Environmental Assessment, a Guide to Environment Assessment, referred to briefly as "the guide." There is no doubt about there being no obligation on the
1450
promoters of the Bill to provide an environmental statement. I quote from paragraph 68 of the guide:
"Under Article 1.5 of the Directive, the Directive does not apply to projects the details of which are approved by a specific act of national legislation. This provision serves to exempt projects which are authorised by a Private Bill".
Paragraph 8 of the regulations is equally clear. It states:
"The process of environmental assessment should not be imposed where it is not required by the Directive".
I have already quoted verbatim paragraph 10 of the special report of the Select Committee. In it the Coalfield Communities Campaign sought to argue before the Select Committee that an environmental assessment statement was mandatory on the promoters. It relied principally for that submission on the construction of the wording of the directive. In fact, and with great respect to the noble Lords opposite, it might have done better to seek support from the guide which I have just quoted to your Lordships. It goes on to state:
"It is the Government's view that where, but for this provision, environmental assessment would have been required for a project, the promoter of a Bill should provide an environmental statement which can be considered by the Select and Standing Committees of each House on the Bill".
It is by no means clear from either the directive, the guide or the regulations whether in theory the Immingham project falls into that category. It would appear to hinge on whether it is defined as a trading port on the one hand or a modification of a trading port or, within the context of infrastructure projects, a harbour on the other hand. However, I do not believe that it is either necessary or fruitful to discuss such semantics. The promoters of the Bill have no wish to rely on technicalities in order to escape from any moral—for there are certainly no statutory—obligations.
Therefore, in answer to the proposed amendment I argue as follows. The relevant local authorities were consulted and they raised no objections. Quite the contrary. I shall quote from a letter received from Glandford Borough Council in South Humberside. It states:
"The Borough Council is of the view that this proposed development is a natural extension of the activities of the port of Immingham. The development will give security of employment and it is hoped will also increase employment potential in an area where there is a need for new jobs to be created. The expansion of the Port will also help the general development of the area and is seen as being particularly important in the run-up to 1992 and the need to be more competitive with Continental Ports. The development is not seen as having any adverse effect on the environment of the area, bearing in mind the: excellent road structure linking to the national motorway network which already exists.
Similarly, Cleethorpes Borough Council has stated:
"In so far as much of the proposed development is within the borough of Cleethorpes I wish to register my council's continuing support for the proposals. Without doubt the port of Immingham, with its excellent rail and road communications, is one of the most successful in the UK and this timely expansion of its facilities will enable it to take the lead in developing strong economic links in the post-1992 era with our neighbours in Europe".
Under the regulations it is open to local authorities to call for further information or advice on a project.

1451
Clear evidence was also given to the Select Committee that British Rail has the capacity to carry the additional tonnages which would go through the new jetty. In addition, as I have already pointed out, the Select Committee found that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road. Having said all that, I respectfully remind your Lordships that it is not within the control of Associated British Ports or any other owner/operator of any port anywhere in this country to control where cargoes come from or go to and how they move from or to such place.
In my submission, this is not the kind of case envisaged for environmental assessment at all. For example, projects listed in the directive as requiring environmental assessment include thermal power stations, installations designed for the permanent storage or final disposal of radioactive waste and installations for the extraction of asbestos. The directive, regulations and guide are concerned with direct and relatively local effects which can reasonably be forecast from such projects. Here we are talking about a number of commodities which can be taken anywhere at any time, because they are responsive to the market and to customers. It would be impossible to make a meaningful environmental assessment when there are so many imponderables. I quote again from the regulations. Paragraph 8 states:
"It has been the Government's aim in implementing the requirements of the Directive to ensure that no unnecessary additional burdens are placed on either developers or authorities … while such [environmental assessment] statements will need to comply with the requirements of the Directive, it is important that they should be prepared on a realistic basis and without undue elaboration; and that the additional costs imposed on developers by the requirement to provide information about environmental effects should be kept to the minimum consistent with compliance with the Directive".
Finally, and I have apologised for the inordinate length of time I have taken, I should like to point out that this Bill has a long history. It began its progress in 1987 and was considered by two Select Committees; the first in another place and the second in this House. Although the directive dates from 1985 this environmental assessment issue was not raised until very late in the hearing of evidence before your Lordships' Select Committee just a matter of a few weeks ago. I do not think that I can do better than to quote from ABP's counsel in summing up before the Select Committee when he said, "It is a speculative, late in the day amendment".
The main issue which the committee was required to consider was the possible impact of the proposed developments at Immingham on the British coalmining industry. The arguments on this were well aired at Second Reading and doubtless will be again today; I do not propose to reiterate them in detail. I should, however, like to remind your Lordships that paragraph 12 of the Select Committee special report reads;
"British Coal sought an amendment to prohibit the importation of coal at Immingham before the end of 1995 or thereafter unless an order authorising such importation had been made by the Secretary of State".
1452
The Select Committee special report, at paragraph 21, reads:
"Although the Committee were in no doubt that the Bill should be allowed to proceed with the provisions relating to all three ports, they considered carefully the amendment proposed by British Coal in relation to Immingham",
namely, the one that I have just instanced. The same paragraph 21 of the special report continues:
"They accept British Coal's arguments that there was nothing procedurally improper about the amendment and that a committee on a private bill has a duty to consider not only the issues between the parties appearing before them but also the wider public interest. But they are unanimously of the opinion—an opinion shared by all members of the Commons Select Committee—that the Petitioners' arguments raise complex matters of energy and trade policy for which ultimately the national government must take responsibility. The Committee accept too the Promoters' argument that there are considerable uncertainties over the prospects for imported cheap steam coal in the mid and late 1990s; and that it would be quite wrong on the basis of present forecasts to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private bill".
The Select Committee goes on in paragraphs 22 and 23 to express its grave anxiety about the potential effect on the coal industry and on coalfield communities of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal. It asks the Government to,
"give some indication that if the present risk of danger to the coal industry is likely to become a reality, they will give earnest consideration in the national interest to supporting the industry".
I concur with the committee's conclusion that the Government should consider any undesirable industrial or social consequences resulting from any substantial imports of cheap foreign coal in the overall context of its trade and energy policy. However, I also concur wholeheartedly with its opinion that it would be quite wrong to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private Bill. I submit that that opinion should be borne most heavily in mind at this evening's Third Reading.
The object of the Bill is to enable ABP to carry out its statutory duties to provide such port facilities as it thinks expedient, thereby maintaining Britain's position as an effective trading nation. It is not only in ABP's interest but also in the national interest that ABP should do that.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Geddes.)
8.41 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee from whom the Bill has been reported and that the committee shall consider an environmental assessment statement on the works proposed in the Bill at Immingham to be prepared by the promoters of the Bill in accordance with EC Directive 85/337").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is no longer in the Chamber but I thank him for his kind words about my noble friend Lord Underbill, who is ill. Part of the reason why I am dealing with

1453
the Bill this evening is that my noble friend Lord Underhill has asked me to do that in his stead.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for going through the Bill and for dealing so comprehensively with my amendment. I hope to deal in my reply with many of the points which he raised. I begin by saying that the emphasis of this Bill was on the coal industry. I make no apology for that and I certainly make no apology for bringing it back. The noble Lord read out part of paragraph 21 on the arguments that there are considerable uncertainties over the prospect of imported cheap coal in the mid and late 1990s. He said that on the basis of present forecasts it would be quite wrong to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private Bill. That may be true in one respect but that is a very narrow way of looking at a private Bill. Surely one of the reasons for bringing back a Bill is so that the Houses of Parliament as a whole can discuss whether the Bill has dealt sufficiently with the wider factors of national interest. Why do we have a Parliament if it is not to deal with the wider interests?
In general, the special report is comprehensive and fair. Paragraph 5 points out that the Bill was considered at length on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committee of the other place. The House should be reminded that the Bill was given a Third Reading on 11th January by a majority of only 23 votes when over 400 Members voted. It was not overwhelmingly accepted.
Furthermore, the Select Committee stated that it allowed the Bill to proceed without amendment whereas paragraph 12 made clear that it rejected an amendment sought by British Coal to prohibit the importation of coal before the end of 1995. There is no disagreement that the coal industry has achieved a considerable increase in productivity since 1985. That has been an increase of over 75 per cent. That is why we accept the coal factor in this Bill unreservedly.
The Commons Select Committee expressed anxiety about the possible impact on the British coal industry if there were to be substantial coal imports. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, at col. 569 on Second Reading on 26th February. Paragraphs 11 to 15 of the report outline fully the anxieties of the coal industry about the development at Immingham, and that anxiety was expressed by both the trade unions and British Coal.
It was pointed out in paragraph 12 that British Coal has a contract with the electricity industry which expires in 1993. British Coal argues that there should be a prohibition on imports until the end of 1995. One wonders whether the big berth will be ready by the end of 1995. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, may know more about that than I do. I do not believe that it is asking a great deal to have a prohibition until the end of 1995. That would provide an opportunity for British Coal to take advantage of the adjustment in prices which by that time would, in all probability, be working in Britain's favour.
Paragraph 15 of the report states that the Bill's promoters declined to argue about the potential
1454
effects on the coal industry. They put forward—and the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, repeated it this evening—the rather surprising statement that:
"There was no evidence of imminent danger to the coal industry' and in any event there were a great many uncertainties about the prospects for the import of coal and its use in power stations beyond 1993".
I could continue to refer to that paragraph and also paragraph 21, which continues on the same theme.
I am pleased to note that in paragraph 23 the special report requires a definite statement from the Government during the debate. I am sure that the noble Viscount who is to reply will, with his usual thoroughness, have looked that up and be able to make just such a statement.
Before going into details about the reasons for the amendment, attention must be drawn to the environmental issues which have come to the fore in the media during recent weeks concerning the EC large plant directive, which requires that the UK shall reduce its SO2 emissions from existing power stations. On 13th December last the environment Minister, Mr. Trippier, announced that the UK is committed to reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 1993, by 40 per cent. by 1998 and by 60 per cent. by 2003. I am told that the most efficient way to carry out that obligation is by fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment—FGD equipment.
It has been suggested that, instead of undertaking that expenditure, there may be a switch from installing FGD equipment to the use of cheap imported low sulphur coal. I am not an expert on this subject but I find it difficult to believe that some FGD equipment will still not be necessary with soft coal. That is one fact which must be kept in mind.
The reason for the amendment in my name is that paragraph 19 rejects the case advanced for the preparation of an environmental assessment statement. I should like to set out the details of the EC directive and explain why it should apply to this project at Immingham and, despite what is put forward in the special report, why the Bill should be recommitted to a Select Committee for consideration in the light of the EC directive.
Article 1 of the directive applies to the assessment of the environmental effects of public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. Article 2 states that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must be subject to assessment before consent is given. Projects listed in Annex I must always be subject to an assessment. Projects listed in Annex II are to be made subject to an assessment where member states consider that the characteristics so require. Paragraph 8 of Annex I sets out a class of projects which includes "trading ports". Paragraph 10 of Annex II refers to a class which includes harbours other than trading ports.
Although the Bill was first deposited in the House of Commons in November 1987 the committees in both Houses gave their consent to this Bill after the directive came into force on 3rd July 1988. The facility proposed at Immingham is a deep-water common-user facility for the use of vessels of

1455
120,000 tonnes and more. This is quite different in purpose from the existing facilities at Immingham and arguably comes within the trading ports category in Annex I.
Under Article 4(1) the words would have to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment before consent was given. Even if this is incorrect, the works would fall within paragraph 10 of Annex II; and in that case there would still need to be a proper determination as to whether the characteristics of the project made an assessment necessary.
Article 1(5)—I am sorry to be so detailed but it is only in this way that one can deal with such a subject—contains a provision that the directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation. On the face of it, this exempts projects authorised through the private Bill procedure. However, Article 1(5) states that the reason is that,
"the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process. The Commission takes the view that this means that the exemption is conditional on the objectives of the Directive being achieved through this legislative process."
Evidence produced in support of the Bill by the promoters including a letter from PowerGen, which identified one significant environmental impact which would arise from the use of the proposed facilities at Immingham, namely, the impact of transporation of coal by road from the port to the power stations where it would be burned. This would be contrary to the policy of local authorities in the areas where power stations are situated. These authorities almost invariably impose planning conditions requiring transportation of coal from mines to power stations to be by rail rather than by road in order to mitigate the environmental impacts.
The Coalfield Communities Campaign, which represents many of these authorities and which has petitioned against the Bill, sought to introduce an amendment requiring the transportation of coal from the port to be by rail or barge rather than by road. They also raised the environmental impact assessment point.
The committee were obviously impressed by the Coalfield Communities Campaign's submission. The chairman specifically invited counsel for the promoters to address them on the question as to whether the apparent exemption in Article 1(5) of the directive was conditional on the legislative procedure containing similar requirements. However, counsel for the promoters failed to deal with this point in his submissions. Nevertheless, the committee decided not to require the preparation of an environmental impact assessment. In their special report (paragraph 19) they argued that there were no standing orders of the House requiring promoters of Bills to present an environmental assessment. They also said that there were no local objections to the works on environmental grounds.
Likewise they rejected the Coalfield Community Campaign's proposed amendment. They agreed with the point made by the promoters that highway authorities already possessed powers to restrict the
1456
movement of heavy goods by road. I will deal with that point in a moment but I should like now briefly to turn to why the committee's decisions were wrong.
The fact that there are no standing orders requiring environmental impact assessments is, with respect, irrelevant. The significance of standing orders is simply that this would oblige the promoters to prepare an environmental impact assessment in advance of the committee proceedings and without the need for a specific request from the committee. However, there is no doubt that the committee has power of its own to require the preparation of an environmental impact assessment if its thinks fit, notwithstanding the absence of a standing order requiring that.
We would argue that the committee was also under a duty to require such an assessment, or at least to make a proper determination under Article 4(2) of the directive in order to ensure that the obligations of the United Kingdom under the directive are fulfilled. The fact that there were no local objections on environmental grounds is also immaterial. The purpose of an environmental impact assessment is to identify and assess all relevant impacts, even in the absence of objections by local interest groups. Moreover, the directive specifically requires indirect effects to be taken into account. Therefore the effect does not have to be local to the project to be relevant.
We would also argue that the committee's rejection of the Coalfield Community Campaign's amendment was misguided. The committee accepted an argument put forward by the promoters at the very last minute to the effect that the powers of highway authorities were adequate to deal with the problem. That is not the case, for two reasons: first, the powers can only be exercised against all heavy goods vehicles and they cannot single out coal lorries; and, secondly, they can only be used to re-route lorries and not to prevent their use altogether for the transportation of coal to power stations. They can only take them round a different way, and I am sure that the Minister will be very familiar with that, wearing his other hat as the Minister responsible for transport in this House.
It is for these reasons that appropriate restrictions are imposed by planning conditions, for instance, on new coalmine developments, since planning conditions are not subject to these limitations. Unfortuantely, planning authorities for the areas where power stations are located have no power to impose conditions on a port outside their area authorised under private Bill procedure.
If there had been a proper environmental impact assessment under the directive, the committee would not have been likely to fall into this error concerning the powers of highway authorities. It was the promoters who provided evidence of a significant environmental impact. They subsequently argued, in paragraph 11 of the report, that a port did not of itself create and could not be held responsible for, the movement of goods across a country once they had left the dock. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said this. It is an extraordinary thing: it is equivalent

1457
to saying that those who operate a nuclear power plant are not responsible for the requirement to reprocess and safely dispose of nuclear materials used in the plant.
The record of the United Kingdom in implementing the environmental impact assessment directive is generally very good. There is excellent provision for these assessments where projects are authorised through the town and country planning process. Even so far as the construction of ports and harbours is concerned, there is specific provision for environmental impact assessment in respect of projects authorised under the Harbours Act. The private Bill procedure represents the one blot on the landscape in this respect. It may be said that it is intended in future to provide for environmental impact assessments under the private Bill procedure by introducing new standing orders. However, this is not an excuse for failing to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the directive in respect of this Bill because the directive was in force before the Committee in either House approved the Bill and also before the directive came into force the United Kingdom had already had three years in which fully to implement it; and finally, I believe that it is arguable that the promoters should have provided an environmental assessment in any event, simply as a matter of good practice.
I am sorry to have taken so long but the points that I have raised were in no way disrespectful to the committee: they merely link up what the committee said with the points made by those outside and those who are very much involved, and with the fact that we believe that the directives were not taken fully into account. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee from whom the Bill has been reported and that the committee shall consider an environmental assessment statement on the works proposed in the Bill at Immingham to be prepared by the promoters of the Bill in accordance with EC Directive 85/337").—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
9 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, as I was chairman of the Select Committee to which this important Bill was committed after the Second Reading debate on 26th February, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about our deliberations and the views that we reached. We sat for 10 full days and two further days where we heard the evidence and submissions made. We sat for a further two days on our deliberations on and preparation of the special report.
I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to my colleagues on the committee—the noble Earls, Lord Halsbury and Lord Gray, and the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Wise. I thank them for their faithful attendance over what was a long period of time and for their individual and helpful contributions to the deliberations of the committee.
1458
I also thank them for their judicious objectivity and fairness throughout our sittings.
As was said by my noble friend Lord Geddes in his admirable speech, it was the unanimous decision of the committee to report the Bill to the House without amendment. In view of the interest in the Bill expressed on Second Reading and the fact that matters raised before us went far wider than the harbour works proposed in the Bill—in particular, complex issues of national energy and trade policy—we thought it right to make a special report to the House. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to many parts of that special report, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
All I wish to say about the report is—I shall refer in part to it—that the special report was agreed unanimously and presents to the House the undivided view of its representative Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to Associated British Ports and he is right that there are certain undisputed facts in the report. Associated British Ports is Britain's largest port authority. It is, as my noble friend said, a reputable company which since its incorporation in 1983 has had remarkable success in the management and improvement of its port facilities, with no demand on public funds.
The parts of the Bill relating to King's Lynn and Port Talbot were not in any way objected to and therefore I shall not refer to them but solely to the issues on Immingham. The ABP port at Immingham is successful and well-managed. We were told that it is the largest in the country. It is undoubtedly well placed on the east coast of Britain and makes a major contribution not only to industrial and commercial interests along the east coast but also to the growth and value of Britain's seaborne trade and the nation's economy.
Ships using Immingham are today limited to 30,000 tonnes. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, the main proposal in this Bill, to which each of the 10 petitioners objected, is the construction of a dry bulk cargo terminal in deep water capable of taking ships of up to 200,000 tonnes. The purpose of this investment, which is nearly £40 million, is to accommodate the larger and more cost-effective bulk cargo vessels in order to compete effectively with the giant Continental ports such as Rotterdam and Amsterdam and save expensive transhipment costs. I am sure that the whole House agrees that if that were to be achieved it would be of considerable national importance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, all the Petitions against the Bill were concerned with the single issue of imported coal; in particular, that the accommodation of large bulk cargo vessels would facilitate the importation of substantial amounts of cheap foreign steam coal. Without this concern—perhaps I should say genuine concern, and this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Geddes in regard to paragraph 17 of the special report—your Lordships may think that there is no doubt that the Bill would have been unopposed in this House and would have received Royal Assent by today.
The committee considered very carefully and very thoroughly the evidence and submissions on the coal

1459
issue and also the amendment proposed by British Coal and referred to by my noble friend when he spoke to paragraph 12 of the special report. Our unanimous decision is contained in paragraph 21 of the special report; namely, that the Petitioners' arguments raise complex matters of national energy and trade for which ultimately the national government must take responsibility. We accept the promoter's argument set out in paragraph 15 that there are considerable uncertainties over the prospects for imported steam coal in the mid and late 1990s. It would be quite wrong, on the basis of present forecasts—I repeat what has been said—to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private Bill.
The House may have noticed the concern we have expressed in paragraphs 22 and 23 of our special report at the potential effect on the coal industry and on coalfield communities, particularly in Nottinghamshire, of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal. I do not intend to say anything further about it except that I hope that my noble friend who will be replying for the Government will be able to respond to the anxieties that we express in paragraph 23.
I now come to the amendment, which was excellently presented by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. His presentation of the argument was immaculate. We have heard it all before. We had young Dr. Witt, who represented the Coalfield Communities Campaign and who is the agent for that campaign. He addressed us at length on this subject. Dr. Witt can be very pleased with the quality of his performance. It impressed the committee. He went into all the detail that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, went into partly. He understood the whole of the argument and put it forward very effectively indeed.
That is why, as the noble Lord said, I was impressed. I wanted the promoters to help us on what I thought was quite an important matter that was being introduced. We gave it the most careful consideration. We decided against the adjournment that he was seeking so that an environmental statement could be made. We did so having gone into every point that was put before us.
The implication in Dr. Witt's submissions to us and in this amendment is that this House is in some way bound by the EC directive and that the Select Committee must therefore receive an environmental statement from the promoter. As I said, we considered this matter carefully and at length.
The noble Lord referred to Article 1.5 of the EC directive. That is a matter which we considered. We found that it has always been understood by the Government, and hence by Parliament, that Article 1.5 grants an exemption from the need for an environmental assessment for any works authorised by a private Bill. Both Houses have acted on that assumption since the directive came into force. That is why promoters are not obliged to prepare statements.
We were shown a letter dated 14th February 1990 from the legal services of the Directorate-General
1460
Environment of the Commission. The effect of that letter was that the EC Commission may now be questioning whether Private Bill projects are exempt. If there is any doubt about it, it can only be resolved between the Government and the EC because it is the Government alone who are responsible for the United Kingdom's international relations. Certainly it would not be for a Select Committee to reach a conclusion on this. In the same way, with respect, I do not believe that this House should.
The House will recall that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure recommended that each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into its Private Bill procedure. Speaking personally, I hope that this recommendation will be implemented as soon as possible. But at present promoters are under no obligation to prepare assessment statements and our committee was right to reject the adjournment sought.
The noble Lord said that we had the power as a committee to order that certain things be done on the environmental side. We were aware of that. In considering the matter we noted, as was said by my noble friend Lord Geddes, that there were no local environmental objections to the works at Immingham. In fact the local authorities supported the works and offered no objections on environmental grounds.
As to the Coalfield Communities Campaign expression of concern at the potential impact of increased transport of coal by road on the communities near power stations and Dr. Witt's amendment to make it obligatory for coal unloaded at the new facility at Immingham to be transported to the generating stations by rail or barge, we found no difficulty in rejecting that amendment. The link between the proposed works and possible damage to distant environment by the possible carriage of goods by road, or possible coal imports, is in our view far too remote. In any event the promoters would not be responsible for the movement of goods once they had left the dock. The committee was assured that highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict such traffic.
Those are the reasons why the committee reached its conclusions. I know the argument that was used by the noble Lord. It is an effective argument but it is misconceived today. Therefore, I suggest to him that he should not press his amendment but should withdraw it at the appropriate time. As for other noble Lords, I hope that they will overwhelmingly support the Third Reading of the Bill.
9.17 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, as one of the members of the Select Committee I should like to say a few words about the special report. As noble Lords are aware, the single issue concerned was related to the importation of coal and the effects the new harbour facilities would create. I recognise the need to build a larger terminal at Immingham to take ships of up to 200,000 tonnes. Economically it makes sense as it would lead to the reduction of transhipment costs and to the recovery of port trade from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and elsewhere.

1461
With reference to the petitioners' amendment stressing the case that colleries would close and thousands of jobs would be lost, the promoters of the Bill pointed out that those matters were outside the ambit of Associated British Ports and involved questions of national energy policy. There was no evidence of imminent danger to the coal industry and there were a great many uncertainties about the prospects for the importation of coal and its use in power stations beyond 1993. The international price of coal and exchange rates have to be considered; and those factors are extremely difficult to forecast.
The Select Committee decided that there was a need for the proposed facilities at Immingham. We considered very carefully the proposed amendment but felt that it would be wrong to introduce such a provision, based on uncertainties, into a Private Bill. However, we were very concerned about the potential effect on the coal industry with the possible closure of mines and the possible job losses and the damage that that would cause to the communities. We hope that the Government will give some helpful assurances that, if there is such a danger to the coal industry, consideration will be given in the national interest. Perhaps the Minister will give such an indication this evening.
My noble friend Lord Ezra had hoped to take part in the debate this evening but is unable to do so. He has asked to be associated with the sentiments I have just expressed. Finally, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, to withdraw the amendment. The issue was raised before the Select Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has emphasised. It was raised at almost the last moment of the proceedings. We discussed it fully and agreed that there were no local objections to the works on environmental grounds. There was also doubt as to whether environmental assessment of such works could realistically take into account the potential effect of the carriage of goods by road on local communities.
An environmental assessment could take an unlimited amount of time; indeed, I do not know how long it would take. If we were to call back the original members of the committee, it could take another year or two before they would be able to sit together as the same committee. It could be three or four years before we could hope to be able to come to any form of agreement.
If the amendment is passed, Associated British Ports would have to consider, due to the time involved, whether it should proceed with the Bill. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the amendment. Having said that, I should like to express my support for the Bill.
9.20 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I feel that possibly I owe your Lordships an apology for intervening in this Third Reading debate as I was not present for Second Reading. However, I can assure noble Lords that I have read very carefully most of what was said in another place. I have read and studied all that was said in your Lordships' House on Second Reading and I have read the special report and much of the deliberations thereon. I can assure the House
1462
that I shall strictly avoid making a Second Reading speech tonight. That has been known to happen.
Perhaps I may be allowed to look back 30 years to the time when I had the privilege of presiding over a government committee which was set up to study the major ports of Great Britain. In 1962 we handed to the Government our very lengthy report. In passing, perhaps I may say that I was flattered to see that this report was referred to on more than one occasion during the deliberations of the Select Committee.
In that report there is one critical sentence. It is critical of the port industry as it then was. We had that sentence printed in italics. The reason it was put in italics was that we wanted to emphasise the lesson that it contained. I think that it has a bearing on today's debate. It read:
"No single additional deep water berth for general cargo has been started since the 1930s—apart from those nearing completion"—
as they then were—
"at Teesport".
That was the Lackenby development.
The comments we wrote in 1962 were of course related to a situation with entirely different details from those which are applicable today. However, that fact does not matter. The overriding lesson contained in that sentence is an enduring lesson and one which is to be learnt and adhered to. Reading the special report of the Select Committee, it seems to me that Associated British Ports has been very alive to that lesson.
The lesson as I see it is this. We are an island economy. We live by means of imports and exports; indeed, they are our very life blood. The port industry must be kept not only abreast but also ahead of changing and likely changing conditions. It must be ready to meet the demands, whatever they are, from home for exports and from overseas for imports. If we do not learn that lesson of being ready to meet that trade, in my view we do not meet it at our peril.
Many possible changes have already been mentioned this evening. However, I should like to mention now the changes that I have in mind. They are mostly technological: the design, size and performance of ships; the size of ports needed to handle those ships; the type of handling methods in the ports; and the pattern of world trade. But what is becoming a particular issue is the growth of our trade with the Community and the competition arising from it, especially from those great ports mentioned by my noble friend Lord Thomas—Rotterdam and Amsterdam—with all the high costs of transhipment that they involve.
The Select Committee, as I read its report, is alert to those facts. It seems to recognise that Associated British Ports is trying to learn the lesson and not allow matters to go by default, as they went by default as we thought 30 years ago. It sees the importance of continuing to be able to meet today's demands and likely future demands.
As I see it, if a port serves one industry only, that port can be developed to suit that industry, but in the case of Immingham—I am confining my remarks

1463
to Immingham—which is a common user port serving several different industries, the collective needs of those industries, rather than any one industry, must be given prior consideration. That point can be borne out by one or two figures that I should like to quote to your Lordships. Today coal imports at Immingham, by tonnage, represents 5 per cent. of total imports. Estimates of what imports might be in 1995 vary between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. by tonnage. If we take imports and exports, those percentages are substantially lower and in no way justify any delay which would be to the disadvantage of other industries. That reinforces my argument that the Bill should be allowed to go ahead as quickly as possible.
At the same time, like the members of the Select Committee of the other place and of this House, one is anxious about the future of the coal trade, especially, as I understand it, the Nottingham coalfield, which is served by Immingham and which has performed laudably in the past year or so. However, I also share the Select Committee's view that this is a matter that should be dealt with by central government, because to quote the words of the report it is something, "affecting complex matters of energy and trade policy".
Like other noble Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister recognises that there are two separate issues: coal, and the import and export of all kinds of products from different industries. I hope therefore that the amendment, about which I have said nothing because I agree with what my noble friend Lord Geddes said about it, will either not be pressed or will not be approved and that the Bill will be able to go forward, despite the long time that it has been with Parliament, so that Associated British Ports can do the important development work and so rid itself of any possible criticism that it is not alive to the importance of our having a forward-looking, effective and efficient port industry.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, who is an authority on shipping, particularly docks. The noble Viscount pointed out the issues with which the report deals firmly; the role and functions of a Select Committee and the responsibilities of the Government. I too was a member of the Select Committee. I am sure that noble Lords agree that one of the most valued functions of this House is the Private Bill Select Committee procedure.
It has been my privilege over a number of years to have been appointed to committees. I have shared with noble Lords from all sides of the House in the work of Private Bill Select Committees. The judicial and court hearing aspects of the Private Bill procedure—to inquire into and to adjudicate upon the different interests presented during the hearings by the promoters of the Bill and by petitioners—are, in my opinion, like a window on the world of work, of gains and losses. It is the real world.
Our deliberations presented a colourful kaleidoscope of the business, commercial and
1464
community life that exists outside Westminster. It is good that Parliament should have this practical input into its proceedings. I say unashamedly that I have been educated—if that is the proper way to put it—and certainly edified on matters of commercial and other interests. There are also the legislative functions of the Private Bill procedure. Members are called upon to exercise every sense of vigilance and to make accessible all available wisdom to safeguard the interests of the public.
I wish to pay tribute to all who took part in the hearings on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. During the 10 days of deliberations, members of the committee were impressed by the skills, the clarity, the forthrightness under examination and the strong commitment to high standards of community values displayed by those who made submissions and gave evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, mentioned the committee. I hope that it will not be seen as "slapping one another's back", as we say in Ireland, if I pay tribute to the noble Lord. The noble Earls, Lord Grey and Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, would join me, I am sure, in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was most thorough, thoughtful and courteous in his position as chairman of the Select Committee. We should be pleased if at any time we were invited to join him again. The committee was expertly and ably served by the Private Bill Office clerk and his staff No impediment was put in our way in obtaining whatever evidence was required in connection with our duties and responsibilities as we saw them.
Noble Lords will have heard this evening of the debate in another place on the Bill. They will have read our special report and noted the decision. At the end of the day, our special report indicates that the committee took the view that the Petitions from the coal industry raised complex matters of energy and trade policy which were matters not for us as members of the committee but for the Government. However, that does not mean that the committee was not gravely concerned by the potential effect on the indigenous coalmining industry of widespread coal imports. It was made clear to us that Parliament through the Select Committee system has a duty with regard to Private Bills not only to adjudicate between the interests of private parties but also to safeguard the interests of the wider community as a whole. That is especially so if coal is to be imported at predatory prices.
Given the strength of opinion expressed in paragraphs 22 and 23 of our report about the role that the Government must play to prevent catastrophic consequences for the mining communities, I feel that the Minister owes the committee and the House a considerable and substantive response this evening. It will not be good enough for the Minister simply to say that the Government remain neutral on the Bill and have nothing to add to what was said at Second Reading.
I say that not to score a party political point but for two reasons: first, because of the weight of the reasoned and impassioned evidence presented to the committee and, secondly, because I believe that a dangerous parliamentary situation could arise if the

1465
Government place an unconstitutional responsibility on a Private Bill procedure which bypasses, either deliberately or accidentally, the proper functions and moral duties of the Government. Those points have already been hinted at in the debate. I agree to a large extent with what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, but I should have been much happier had he dealt with paragraphs 22 and 23 of the special report which mentions those matters.
We received volumes of detailed evidence from British Coal, Associated British Ports, local government spokesmen, the NUM and the UDM. The evidence submitted included submissions by two right reverend Prelates, who gave telling evidence about the possible impact of massive coal imports on coalfield communities in their dioceses. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said in his evidence:
"There appears to be no future for our industry, so whatever we do there is no future for our community, so there is no point in us planning for the future. The cumulative effect of that is despondency in all branches of the community. It is very profound and saddening to see".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell said:
"As the pit is at the centre of the village, its life, its entertainment, its work, when a pit closes it is as though the heart goes out of the community and it has, in fact, been destroyed".
There is no doubt that the mining industry and mining communities fee! let down. That is the issue that confronts us this evening. That is the issue that confronted the committee. I should like to substantiate my point by quoting from the evidence given by miners' representatives to the committee:
"Moreover what is proposed—and when I say that I mean the creation of a situation in which large amounts of foreign coal might very well come into this country—would be fundamentally unfair and unjust … The miners have been repeatedly told that if they adopt their new working practices and co-operate in improving the efficiency of their pits they can look forward to a long, secure future in the coal mining industry … On the one hand, my Lords, the mineworkers have been asked by the community to transform their industry, to cut their costs, to improve their efficiency—they have responded magnificently to the challenge, everyone admits it—and then Associated British Ports comes along and says 'We are going to construct a new facility which will allow substantial imports of foreign coal to be brought into this country right to the heart of the area'. No matter what those mineworkers do to help themselves, there is no way that they can stop the effect of that on their industry. If the Bill is allowed through in those circumstances unamended, it will make all the assurances which have been given to them in the past look very hollow indeed."
Perhaps I may give a further quote which sums up the situation:
"Morale is already low within the industry … morale is desperately low at the present time".
That was on the date of the submissions. I have quoted at length from submissions given over a number of days by the miners' representatives, by the miners themselves, by local representatives of mining areas and by right reverend Prelates.
I should like to indicate some of the reasons why the miners felt so badly let down. One mining representative presented to us a letter which had been sent to him in his official capacity by the Prime Minister. It was dated 15th September 1982. It shows why a feeling of utter despair had arisen, following promises given on behalf of the Government. In the
1466
letter the Prime Minister refers to the honourable Member for Sherwood, Mr. Andy Stewart. The letter states:
"Andy has been to see me today and let me know your views. May I say how greatly I and most other people appreciate what you are doing—you are an example to us all".
That message was sent from the Prime Minister to miners at a critical period of 1982.I understand that there were subsequent discussions which encouraged the miners into thinking that the assurances were genuine and that they would be looked after and given credit for their performance. Their hopes were raised and later dashed.
At the annual conference of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in 1988, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, then the Secretary of State for Energy, said:
"I think it is entirely appropriate that I should be speaking on this occasion to representatives of the mineworkers, and particularly to those mineworkers to whom this whole country owes so much … the Government's continuing commitment to the industry, and continuing support for it … Our resources are not problems; they are assets from which we can only benefit; and I believe that coal is one of the most important of them. That is a fact which this Government has always recognised … I look forward to working with you and all your colleagues for our common good. That common good, that future objective which we all want, is a strong, viable coal industry. The prospects for achieving that are bright and good. It needs the commitment of all—government, management and men. I pledge the Government's commitment. I believe that together we can build an industry which has a bright future and will be an important contributor to the wealth of our country".
In my view the Government have disappointed the coalminers. They have sadly demoralised the mining community. This evening the Government have an opportunity to remedy that situation. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply to the debate will face up to the challenge put to him in this report. It is a challenge to honour promises that have been given and to face up to the dilemma that mining communities themselves have had to face.
I do not intend it in any personal way and mean my words to be taken by the noble Viscount in the sense of his acting on behalf of the Government when I say, "Do not commit a Pontius Pilate act and wash your hands of this particular problem". The onus is on the Government. I should like them to take this matter further, consider the final paragraphs in the report and face up to the responsibilities.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that I am a director of Associated British Ports. On this occasion I need detain the House for only a very short time. After the clear and comprehensive speech of my noble friend Lord Geddes and the equally comprehensive summary of the Select Committee's position by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, there is indeed very little that remains to be said.
Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House of the reasons why Associated British Ports introduced this measure. It has been said that it was introduced in order to meet the company's statutory obligations. That is true. It is also true that as a business judgment the company clearly believes that it can profitably

1467
operate this port. That is a perfectly respectable objective for any company.
However—my noble friend Lord Rochdale made this point abundantly clear—there is a wider reason for the introduction of this measure; namely, the interests of our customers and the nation. Perhaps the House will have been struck, as I was, by the reminder from my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir that the existing major port at Immingham can only take ships of 30,000 tonnes. In the context of modern trade practice it is almost unbelievable that the major trading port on the east coast of this country is restricted in that way. All those industries in this country which depend on the efficient and competitive handling of cargo, particularly bulk cargo, are handicapped because we have ports that are simply unable to compete with Continental ports. Therefore so many of our industries have to tranship their goods and incur additional costs as a result.
I do not think there can be any doubt about the national importance of having modern ports which are capable of handling the largest ships in the most efficient way possible. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, rightly emphasised the importance of the coal industry. No one will question that, least of all perhaps a former Secretary of State for Wales. But we are dealing with a whole range of important industries. The coal industry is only one important industry among very many. I believe that Associated British Ports has a proper duty to meet the needs of all those industries and to consider them, as my noble friend Lord Rochdale said, collectively and in the widest possible sense.
I refer to the central issue that has dominated the proceedings on the Bill for so long since it was introduced in the autumn of 1987; that is, the issue of coal. I understand the feeling so clearly and notably presented to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in the speech that preceded mine. But, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir said, to accept the proposed amendment would be to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist measure into a private Bill. It would not only be an unprecedented measure but it would set a most dangerous precedent for the future.
It would be so dangerous that the Board of Associated British Ports took the view that if it were introduced it could not proceed with the Bill, not because there was no need for its other customers at Immingham, nor because it would be impossible to run the Immingham facilities profitably, but because a precedent would have been set that a clause should be introduced into a port measure for the wider control of trade and for exercising responsibilities that clearly should be and can be exercised by government.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me how he knows that it would be unprecedented?
Lord Crickhowell: In using that phrase, with respect, I was simply quoting from my noble friend the chairman of the Select Committee and the
1468
statement included in the report of the Select Committee.
My third point refers to the work of a Select Committee and the value that should be attached to it by this House. As I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the very detailed way in which he examined the environmental issue—indeed as I listened to my noble friend Lord Geddes addressing the same point—I felt that I was listening to to the most compelling case that I have yet heard for having Select Committees examining those issues and reaching decisions about them.
We heard from my noble friend who chaired the Select Committee that it sat for 10 full days and deliberated for two days. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to the number of pages of evidence devoted to the specific environmental issue. We heard that the chairman of the Select Committee, having heard Dr. Witt's evidence and having addressed the significance of it, reminded the committee and the counsel for Associated British Ports of its significance and had a response. In the relatively brief time available to the House this evening, it is extraordinarily difficult to argue that we are in a better position in this Chamber to weigh up the complex and detailed arguments that were presented than the Select Committee which considered the issue so carefully and decided unanimously that those arguments should be rejected.
I have only one further point to make on the environmental issue. I would not argue that one should stand on the parliamentary proceedings or the technical arguments about whether one is obliged to introduce environmental assessments. For every reason, I believe that environmental assessments for major projects such as power stations and coal mines—indeed for a range of products—are desirable. I welcome the fact that they are being introduced and that the Government are supporting them. However, if we go down the road of valuing and using environmental assessments, we must understand what they are capable of and what we seek to achieve. Otherwise they will be devalued and rendered worthless.
TheGovernment are absolutely right in their guide to draw attention to the fact that they must deal with direct and relatively local effects. Associated British Ports is in no position to control or to make an assessment of traffic movements in and out of power stations and coal-mines 20, 50, 100 or 200 miles away or to make an assessment of the actions taken by any of their customers elsewhere. It is notable that in presenting his closing address to the committee Dr. Witt cited examples of cases where environmental assessments had been taken. In every case he cited coal-mines and power stations. He cited the kind of projects where one can make an assessment of local impact.
The arguments this evening appeared to be about whether the projects should have been sited where they were or whether special controls are needed for movements in and out. The truth is that coal will be moved in and out of power stations and coal-mines for a variety of reasons and it will be moved by

1469
different forms of transport, and those reasons will have nothing to do with the construction of the jetty.
One of the reasons was cited by the noble Lord. Lord Carmichael, when he drew attention to the need to reduce the discharge of sulphur into the atmosphere. That leads to the need for blending and for moving coal from one pit to another in the transport of coal around the country. Perhaps that will be a more significant factor in the years ahead, with all the environmental importance that we are now attaching to the issue, than the construction of the jetty at Immingham. But there is no way that an environmental assessment conducted by Associated British Ports will be able to add anything to the information that we now have about the matter.
The only issue about which we can be certain is that those most closely involved and knowing most about the situation in the locality—that is, the local authorities—are certain that there will be no adverse environmental impact locally. As the committee has reminded us, there are adequate powers to enable the local authorities to control movements of coal by road there and elsewhere in the country. For all those reasons, I ask the House to support the Bill.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I concur with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as regards the possible setting of a dangerous precedent. I also agree with the wise words of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, that a port exists to serve all industries. As the Bill has proceeded I have sometimes gained the impression that the coal industry is the only industry that we have. One must admire the tenacity of its supporters and I have every sympathy with their feelings.
However, the time has come to accept the findings of your Lordships' Select Committee and not to resort to more tricks to delay this much delayed Bill even further. The Select Committee's report is excellent and fair. It takes into account the anxieties of the coal industry as set out in paragraphs 22 and 23. I am sure that all noble Lords are looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Most noble Lords will be aware that many of our marine-related industries have been in a sad state of decline for a number of years. I really believe we have reached a point at which we must make a firm stand. I draw great comfort from the recent appointment of Sir Geoffrey Stirling to the presidency of the General Council of British Shipping. I am sure that he will be an admirable promoter of that message.
This Bill has had a very good hearing in both Houses. Now is not the time to start rehearsing the arguments again. Any further delay or, God forbid, at worst the loss of this Bill at this stage would send out a crystal-clear message to our Continental neighbours. That message would bring a wry smile to the faces of the comfortable burghers of Rotterdam and Antwerp. Such a message is the exact opposite of that which we should be sending and which I hope we shall send; namely, that our ports and our other marine industries are back in business with a vengeance, freed from the shackles of the past
1470
and what can be referred to as the bad old days placed firmly behind them.
In that light, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will not press his amendment and that this much delayed Bill will be allowed to proceed into law.
10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, after the masterly rehearsal of the case for the Bill by my noble friend Lord Geddes and the other speeches made in its support, I shall be extremely brief. I spoke on Second Reading and argued then that it was quite inappropriate that opposition to a Bill of this kind, designed to improve the infrastructure of our ports industry and in particular an important east coast port to which the whole emphasis of our trade has moved over the past 25 years, should be quite openly used as a vehicle for the protection of a particular industry.
Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I admire the tenacity and, indeed, the ingenuity with which spokesmen for the mining industry have hung their case at different stages on the provisions of this Bill. I listened with unalloyed admiration to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, constructed his case for throwing yet another spanner into the passage of the Bill. One must say that the ingenuity itself disclosed the noble Lord's main purpose, which is not to improve the environment of North Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire or whichever areas may be affected by the traffic coming from this port. It is to stop the Bill. That is what parliamentary procedure is for.
I entirely agree that a Bill of this sort can very properly be used as a way of airing a case and bringing to the attention of both Houses the anxieties felt by a particular concern. But that does not mean to say that when the House has listened to all the arguments it should pay too much attention to them in the context of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will go through and that the almost unprecedented delays to which it has been subject are now behind us so that we can go ahead with this very important project.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, was extremely eloquent, having listened for 10 days to the cries of anxiety and distress from the coalfield areas. Who can be in any doubt as to what lies behind that? I shall not weary the House at this hour with a great many figures but I should like to quote one or two. In 1950 the coal industry employed 691,000 people, in 1970 it employed 287,000 people and in 1990 the figure is probably something in the order of 85,000. By any standard, that represents a massive reduction in employment opportunities in the mining industry. However, other industries can point to the same reductions; for example, the shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries and a number of others.
The point about the mining industry—it has been made before, and anyone who has had anything to do with it recognises it and sympathises—is that where it operates it tends to be the only industry, and what do you do with a one-horse town when the

1471
horse has bolted? This is the problem which has coloured the attitudes of the mining communities not only in this country but in other countries as well. The case has been made in the context of this Bill but should not any longer be allowed to hold up this Bill. I agree with those who say that it is the duty of the government of the day to state what their policy is and to indicate what support they have given and are prepared to continue to give to the industry.
The only point I would make here is that we debated the Second Reading of this Bill when the House had just dealt with the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, which is now the Coal Industry Act. Massive financial support was given in the form of writing off literally billions of accumulated losses of the coal industry so that the balance sheet of British Coal started to be largely free from this enormous overhanging debt. It also substantially increased the limits of grant payments that continue to be made to the coal industry in order to help the rationalisation and the redundancy problem, which no doubt will still be necessary if this industry is going to be able to compete in the 1990s and beyond.
The facts of the case speak for themselves. In the four-and-a-half years after the disastrous miners' strike, which was in some ways a tragedy for the industry, until the end of last year the number of operating collieries had been halved. The interesting feature is that the output of coal has remained almost constant. Why? It is because productivity in the coal industry has risen by over 90 per cent.
I have had some experience in industry and in other organisations. I find it impossible to believe that the morale situation which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, tried to put before the House as affecting the mining industry could conceivably be as black as he painted it if there has been a productivity increase of 90 per cent. That sort of increase is achieved by men and managements who have their tails up, who see the opportunities and who are prepared to work for them in order to safeguard their position. The tragedy is that it did not happen years earlier. Indeed, had we had a 90 per cent. increase in productivity in the mining industry not just in the four years 1985 to 1989 but in the 20 or 30 years before that, we would be talking about a totally different situation.
My mind goes back perhaps even further than that of my noble friend Lord Rochdale. "Give me another 100 million tons of coal, and I will rule Europe". Who said that? It was Ernest Bevin when he was Foreign Secretary in 1945-46. The problem is now being solved and I think the future of the coal industry now that it has been greatly slimmed down and is vastly more efficient, highly mechanised, modern, thrusting and competitive is probably
1472
brighter than it has been at any stage in my lifetime. That is my opinion and that is what I should like to hear my noble friend say from the Front Bench. I hope that he will respond to the Select Committee's report and deal particularly with the problem of imports, because we are a mercantilist community: we live by trade. We depend upon as high a proportion of exports as anywhere else in the world. That means that we always have to open our shores to imports.
With the greatest respect to my other noble friend on the Front Bench who wound up the Committee stage debate, he said this about imports. He said that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, had drawn attention to imports, and added:
"I believe I have said before from this Dispatch Box that many of the imports are special requirements for industry and are not available from the supplies mined by British Coal".
That is perfectly true and no one has denied it. However, he went on to say:
"The Government's policy is not to restrict imports of coal".
I hope my noble friend can say that it is the Government's policy neither to restrict nor to promote imports of coal, because it must be even-handed; there must be balance. That is what the industry, its suppliers and its customers want to hear.
One cannot just say that we are not going to restrict imports, leaving people with the impression that somehow it is the Government's wish to see more imports of coal. With the trade imbalance of the size that we have at present, that cannot be right. I am sure that that is not what my noble friend meant, but the words he used may have given that impression. He went on to say, perfectly correctly:
"Decisions on coal purchases, whether from indigenous or imported sources, must be for the commercial judgment of those concerned on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller".— [Official Report. 9/2/90; col. 1062.]
I believe that these are policy statements of the Government which the Select Committee was entirely right to say raised broad national issues of energy policy. We heard earlier this evening that the Government should be making more general statements about foreign and European policy so that we all know where they stand and not be continually playing a game of cards close to the chest, which one does in detailed negotiations not in broad policy. On such matters as energy policy the same remarks apply.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has an opportunity this evening to do just that. He has been encouraged by an admirable Select Committee report and I hope he takes that opportunity. I warmly commend the main thrust of the report, that the Bill should go ahead and that it should go ahead quickly. Facilities should be built at all three ports of Immingham, King's Lynn and Port Talbot and we should set about modernising our port industry.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has made so many misleading statements about the coal industry that I am tempted to scrap my notes and deal with the points he made, but there is not time.
However, I shall deal with one point. The noble Lord spoke about productivity. Yes, productivity in the coal industry has risen considerably, but the simple reason is the investment in new machinery. I do not know how often the noble Lord goes down the pits but when I go down, which is frequently, I see transformation all the time I am there. The point is that production has not gone up. That is the difference. The noble Lord said that there were 660,000 miners 30 years ago and only 85,000 now. His figure is certainly correct but what does he expect those of us who support the mining industry to do? Are we to say "Well, another 5,000 or so will not matter until we get down to 10,000"? Surely he does not expect that to be the case. However, it seems to me that these are matters for another occasion.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gave to me when he kindly allowed me to intervene. I had asked him what the evidence was for there not being a precedent. I quote from paragraph 12 of page 5 of the report. The noble Lord agreed that the chairman of the committee had said this and that it was contained in the report. I quote:
"Such protection against the import of a single commodity at a single port would be unusual but not unprecedented".
If I read the paragraph correctly that might be part of the evidence of British Coal. If that is the case, surely we can argue that an organisation such as British Coal in turn has researched it and said that it is not unprecedented. I leave that point with your Lordships because the matter has been mentioned several times in the debate and it has to be taken into consideration.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the precedent is that a Private Bill applying to a particular locality is to i be used as a means for controlling national policy on trade, which is clearly the responsibility of national government either through powers that they already have or by the legislative means that are available to them. The precedent that I am opposing is the one which suggests that those kinds of measures should be introduced on the back of a Private Bill in order to construct a specific infrastructure facility.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that, but I am not sure that it entirely deals with the point that I made. However, it was worth having it mentioned as it might be taken into consideration at some other time. The two points that I wish to make are related. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that had it not been for what he called the coal issue the Bill would have gone through without any problem. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, repeated that.
1474
I am wondering what that is supposed to mean. There is hardly any legislation that goes through either House which does not have some aspect of controversy. That is what Parliament is about. If any individual, organisation, Member of Parliament or Member of this House feels sufficiently strongly about a matter, then it should be stated It has been said that those of us who feel strongly about the coal industry and everything that is meant by coal communities have to say what they think about such matters.
However strong the case that is made from the other side of the House and by the Select Committee, we are entitled to say what we feel. I certainly make no apology for raising again at Third Reading what has been called the coal issue. The increase in the importation of coal which some of us think will take place will have wide-ranging consequences, particularly in the closing of pits, with the loss of thousands of jobs, and in its impact on the environment.
On the latter point I refer to the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend. The impact of the EC directive requiring an environmental assessment perhaps represents—I put it no higher than that—a grey area which the Select Committee could have taken into account in reaching a conclusion on this issue. Your Lordships may feel that, if the Select Committee knew that the application of the EC directive to Private Bills at a future date was the subject of discussion with the Commission, the prudent course, even in the absence of local objections, would have been to call for such an assessment before recommending the Bill to your Lordships' House. That is the major reason for the amendment.
Let us consider the situation if, in future cases, such assessments are required by the EC under this directive. Would your Lordships feel that justice had been done in respect of this particular Bill? It is hardly enough to say that it is exclusively a matter for Her Majesty's Government. There is such a thing as good practice. We have all heard about it in connection with many pieces of legislation. In my view this would have been an entirely appropriate occasion upon which to apply it.
I certainly do not intend to repeat the detailed arguments raised here at Second Reading and during this measure's two-year passage through another place. The difference this evening is that we have before us the special report from the Select Committee on the Bill. The report contains some devastating comments on the measure. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, very properly made several quotations from the report. Some were perhaps slightly selective. I do not complain about that. We all do it at some time. If I make some quotations it may help to restore the balance.
There were 10 petitioners against the Bill; four, not unexpectedly, were from organisations directly connected with the coal industry, but six were from local authorities. Noble Lords will have noticed that

1475
this is a special report from a Select Committee. It is a special report because the works proposed in the Bill,
"included aspects of energy and trade policy which are of national importance"—
the implication—certainly to some of us—being that such matters are wholly inappropriate for a Private Bill. The committee's words could hardly be stronger. The report stated:
"The Committee are greatly concerned at the potential effect on the coal industry and on coalfield communities of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal".
It went on to state:
"The Committee hope that at Third Reading the Government will respond in substance"—
I am sure noble Lords will note the strength of that word—
"to this Special Report and give some indication that if the present risk of danger to the coal industry is likely to become a reality, they will give earnest consideration in the national interest to supporting the industry".
Like other noble Lords, I am looking forward to the Minister's reply.
The Select Committee told us:
"The Promoters declined to argue about the potential effects on the coal industry".
Surprise, surprise! The committee drew attention to an undertaking which the Select Committee in another place sought and obtained from the promoters. It was that the promoters would provide the Department of Energy and the House of Commons Library with statistics specifying the amount of coal imported through Immingham, and certain information about the origin of that coal. I am greatly intrigued by that promise. If the figures show that there has been a substantial increase, which at least might be the case—we think that that will be the case, but at least it might be the case—what then? Will some authority tear down the new facilities at the port? Will the port authorities reimburse British Coal for the damage done to the indigenous coal industry, including the loss of miners' jobs? The fact is that it was a preposterous undertaking, hollow and meaningless and completely irrelevant to the issue.
Apart from the quantity, what would be done about the fact that virtually all the coal presently imported into this country has a much higher sulphur content than our own coal? Is not that in itself, in these days of great and growing environmental concern, something which must be taken into consideration?
I am deeply concerned about the Government's attitude to this Bill. They have said that they are neutral on it. To see how neutral they are, I examined the Division list on Third Reading in another place. It showed that 61 members of the Government voted for it and that that number included no fewer than 18 members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and, perhaps most ironically of all, 10 Whips. I do not contest their right to vote on a Private Bill but to say that there was no whipping is stretching the meaning of the word. Whipping does not always mean having three lines on a piece of paper. That analysis of the voting demonstrates quite
1476
clearly that the Government strongly supported the passing of the Bill and that neutrality is not, to say the least, quite what the Government had in mind.
I wish to comment on two matters which have been raised frequently in connection with the Bill. We have consistently said that an increase in coal imports will add to the disgraceful balance of payments deficit that the Government have brought about. The response has always been—it has been mentioned on one occasion tonight—that imports are only a small proportion of the nation's coal needs. However, what we never hear about is that for the first time ever the country has a fuel trade deficit. Considering the gift of North Sea oil and gas, and our huge coal reserves, it is almost unbelievable that we should now be in such a position—and here the Government are not doing anything to prevent a measure which will exacerbate the balance of payments deficit.
The second point concerns the contract negotiated between British Coal and the new electricity generators. It is a settlement which is frequently hailed as the saviour of our coal industry. I should remind your Lordships that the contract is an interim one and covers only the next three years. That contract will nicely bridge the gap between now and completion of the works proposed in the Bill. I forecast—and I am quite sure about this—that the contract which follows will without any doubt mark a further reduction in the demand for British coal. So much, therefore, for the value of the highly publicised contract.
I fervently hope that the Government will take the Select Committee's report seriously. Whenever I speak in your Lordships' House on the issue of coal, I refer to the importance of ensuring that the country maintains its security of supply. I believe that that cannot be stressed too strongly or too frequently. Many countries envy the fact that we can guarantee the supply of coal, for its many purposes, for two centuries at least.
All kinds of factors can affect the supply and price of imported coal. I am pleased, therefore, that the last words contained in the Select Committee's report are these:
"The Committee accept that an island nation must have an efficient and competitive port industry and that a manufacturing nation must have cheap sources of electrical power".
We all say "Hallelujah!" to that, so the next sentence is crucial. It reads:
"However, if the unrestricted interaction of these requirements leads to undesirable industrial and social consequences, the Government should act to avert them".
I fear, as do my noble friends, that those consequences will come about. The sponsors of the Bill have made no real attempt to refute them and the Government have been pusillanimous in the extreme. We shall all be the worse off for this measure and I shall certainly not support its passage through the House.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I am the last member of the Select Committee to take part in the debate this evening. I am sure that noble Lords will be glad to know that I shall throw the copy of my speech away

1477
because what I had intended to say has already been said. However, I should like to express my appreciation and admiration to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir for the able manner in which he chaired the committee. It was certainly not an easy task.
The committee was unanimously agreed that there certainly is a demand for another deep-water port facility on the east coast. It is obvious that a facility such as is envisaged in the Bill at Immingham will benefit the whole of industry, not only in the region but ail over the country. It will facilitate both imports and exports and reduce the cost of the transhipment of cargoes.
I hope therefore that the Bill will receive a Third Reading and that it will proceed. I also hope, as other noble Lords have said, that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take due care and attention and give us some assurance regarding the last two points contained in the Select Committee's report regarding the coal issue, which is most important and which worries us all.
10.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I wish to say a brief word about the amendment to the Motion for Third Reading which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Before I do so, perhaps I may through him express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my best wishes for his quick return to the House.
I should like to echo the words of thanks which have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and to his fellow members for serving on the Select Committee and for their admirably clear and concise special report. It was, as we have heard, a long committee. It sat for nearly 50 hours spread over 11 days, and the matters raised before it were difficult and inevitably controversial.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would oblige the promoters to prepare and submit to the same Select Committee an environmental assessment statement. I shall first say a quick word about environmental assessment and the private Bill procedure.
I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has already said tonight, that the recent report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure recommended that each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into its private Bill procedures, and that recommendation is currently under active consideration. However, the joint committee proceeded on the assumption that Article 1.5 of the EC directive on environmental assessment granted an exemption from the requirements of the directive for works projects which were subject to approval by private Bill. That view has been shared by the Government, and it is for that reason that the two Houses have not hitherto incorporated environmental assessment into their procedures.
I understand that there may be some doubt about that exemption, and that the assumption that I have mentioned is not necessarily shared by the European
1478
Commission. However, that is not in the first instance a matter for Parliament and can be solved only between the Government and the Commission because it is the Government who are responsible for the United Kingdom's international relations. In those circumstances, there is not, in my view, any overriding obligation upon the House to require the submission of an environmental assessment statement. Certainly the Bill has complied with all the relevant private business Standing Orders of the House.
The second point that I should like to make concerns the role of Select Committees on private Bills. I stress that the whole system of private Bills' proceedings works on the basis that when a Bill is opposed, that Bill is considered by a Select Committee made up of representatives from all parts of the House. Such committees receive submissions and hear evidence from the opposing parties in coming to decisions on the matters before them.
In the present case, the committee reported unanimously in favour of the Bill, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has told us, specifically rejected a proposal that it should adjourn to await an environmental assessment to be prepared by the promoters. To assist the House, the committee also made a special report setting out the reasons for its decisions. I hope that in those circumstances your Lordships will think seriously before agreeing to an amendment which would, in effect, overturn one of the decisions unanimously reached by your Select Committee.
10.34 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I too should like to express my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for a speedy recovery, and at the same time congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for stepping into his shoes at relatively short notice. The Government have considered the content of this Private Bill and have no objections to the proposals contained in it.
Let me now refer to the special report of the Select Committee prepared under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir. I am sure that all noble Lords who have read that report will find it an informative and valuable document. The Government note that the committee took the view that the promoters had duly established a need for their proposed facilities at Immingham and elsewhere, and the committee further observed that were it not for the coal issue the Bill would have been unopposed in this House.
As stated in the report, the Bill would provide at a most suitable location on the east coast a much needed common user dry bulk cargo terminal capable of taking large ships of up to 200,000 tonnes. Considerable support had been expressed for such a facility by customers and other commercial interests, as the report recalls. It would benefit not only Immingham and Humberside but the nation as well, because in the longer term it should lead to the recovery of port trade from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and elsewhere and to the reduction of transhipment costs.

1479
It is government policy to encourage competition and private initiative. If Associated British Ports thinks that it can make a commercial success of the proposed facilities, there is no government objection to its seeking to do so provided, like any other Private Bill promoter, it is able to persuade Parliament that the powers sought are justified.
The Select Committee is of the opinion that the arguments of the petitioners against the Bill raise complex matters of energy and trade policy for which ultimately the Government must take responsibility. As regards energy policy, the Government's objective is that the United Kingdom should have adequate, secure and environmentally acceptable supplies of energy in the forms that people want and at the lowest practicable long-term costs. The Government aim to achieve this objective by applying their overall macroeconomic policies to the energy sector, making as much of energy supply as is practicable subject to the action of market forces and keeping state intervention to the minimum level needed. They believe that only in this way can they ensure the maximum freedom and flexibility consistent with strategic objectives for safety, security of supply, the prevention of waste and the protection of the environment.
On a more general point, the Government are in favour of free trade and open markets. The case for any exception would need to be looked at very carefully in the context of our international obligations and implications for the United Kingdom economy as a whole.
The Select Committee has expressed concern at the potential effect on the coal industry of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal. In responding to this concern, which was also raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I must emphasise that it has never been the Government's policy either to restrict or to promote the import of coal. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend. Decisions on coal purchases, whether from indigenous or imported sources, must be for the commercial judgment of those concerned, on the basis of willing buyer and willing seller. It would be quite wrong to compel coal users to purchase supplies from British Coal by denying them the right to buy from the supplier of their choice. But neither would we discourage coal users from buying as much coal as they wish from British Coal, which is making strong and successful efforts to reduce costs and increase productivity in order to compete with imports.
The Government have made it clear that the privatised electricity industry will be free to choose its suppliers, including its coal suppliers. But the Government have also expected British Coal to win the bulk of the business of the electricity generators on the basis of its impressively improved performance—productivity has increased by more than 75 per cent. over the past five years—together with the security of supply that it can offer in the face of volatile world markets, fluctuating exchange rates and uncertainties regarding security of supply from overseas sources. The current three-year contracts agreed between British Coal and the two main electricity generators provide British Coal with
1480
a large market opportunity, a guaranteed income stream over the next three years, and time to adjust to the needs of a competitive electricity market.
Coal is one of Britain's major natural assets and the Government have given unswerving support to the coal industry in its efforts to improve productivity and reduce costs. Since 1979, this Government have financed capital investment in the industry of over £7 billion and have provided £10 billion of grant support to assist in restructuring, with a further £6 billion in the pipeline to allow the financial reconstruction of the British Coal Corporation. That level of support has made possible the rapid introduction of a new generation of mining equipment—to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, referred—in up-to-date pits and has contributed enormously to the huge advances in productivity and safety which have been achieved.
The Government believe that measures such as tariff barriers of infrastructure impediments are not the way to secure the British coal industry's future. Rather, the future of the industry must depend on its being able to compete in world markets on the basis of full utilisation of modern technology, together with the security of supply provided by indigenous coal priced in pounds sterling. If recent progress in productivity and cost reduction can be maintained, the Government see no reason to believe that the industry as a whole cannot continue to supply the main bulk of its customers' requirements on a fully commercial basis.
Turning to the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I would refer, as other noble Lords have before me, to the conclusions of the Select Committee which turned down the request of a petitioner for an environmental assessment statement to be prepared. I remind the House that there is no legal requirement at present upon the promoters of this Bill, or for that matter any other Private Bill, to carry out an environmental assessment or to produce an environmental statement along the lines described in the EC Directive No. 85/337. The directive, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir said, does not apply to projects,
"the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation".
That covers projects approved by a Private Bill. However, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedures, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare said, has recommended that there should be a requirement for promoters to produce either an environmental statement or a certificate from the appropriate Secretary of State saying that an assessment is not necessary as the project does not fall within the scope of the directive. The Government are considering the Committee's report but have already announced that they accept that particular recommendation. Implementation would require, among other things, changes to Standing Orders in both Houses. However, as I have already said, those changes have not yet been made and therefore the promoters of the Bill neither were nor are under any obligation to carry out any environmental assessment or produce any environmental statement.

1481
I hope that your Lordships will follow the normal convention on these matters, accept the conclusions of your Select Committee and accordingly allow the Bill to pass.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I find myself in a slightly unusual position summing up the Third Reading of a Bill but not being the last noble Lord on his feet, given that, technically, we are discussing the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, rather than the Third Reading itself. With that minor reservation I shall do the best I can.
First, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the fact that in my anxiety not to spend an even greater length of time on my opening remarks I failed to wish his noble friend Lord Underbill the fastest of recoveries from illness. We miss him.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not comment on every speech that has been made. The hour is rather later than I had anticipated and there are still two further items of business tonight. I should not be thanked if I went through the speeches blow by blow. However, I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Rochdale and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for their interventions, based on enormous depth of knowledge of the port industry in general rather than the particular point of the proposed new berth at Immingham. I was about to say that their comments brought us down to earth; perhaps I should have said the shoreline. Their contributions brought the whole issue back into perspective.
Two noble Lords opposite made comments which I should like to address. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about the expected date of completion of the new berth at Immingham. His noble friend Lord Dormand anticipated me. To the best of my knowledge it will be towards the end of 1993, coming into full phase in 1994-95.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made two remarks on which I should like to comment, one of which I shall come to later. He made the amazing comment that the fact that there were no objections to the Bill on environmental grounds was immaterial. If I heard correctly, I find that the strangest of strange remarks. Not only were there no objections, but there were positive comments on that issue. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to follow me will comment in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, made two comments in a most interesting speech which I should like to pick up. The first concerned his quotation from paragraph 12 of the Select Committee report which states:
"Such protection against the import of a single commodity at a single port would be unusual but not unprecedented".
Paragraph 12 falls under the general title,
"The Interest of the Coal Industry",
which covers four paragraphs. In paragraph 12, the report refers to "British Coal's contract" and goes on to say:
"Moreover they stressed that other European countries afforded far greater protection [to their coal industries]".
1482
I can only construe that as being the view of British Coal rather than of anyone else.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I did say that, but my point was that, given that we are dealing with a large organisation like British Coal with all its staff, researchers and experts, it is at least one view.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I shall read Hansard with great interest. I am sure that the noble Lord is right. I have never heard him say anything in this House which was not right.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Geddes: My Lords, whether I agree with what the noble Lord said is another matter. I am concerned with the accuracy.
The other point raised by the noble Lord concerned statistics on coal imports. Perhaps I may remind him of paragraph 25 of the Select Committee report from another place. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting it all, but it starts:
"First, the Committee sought, and has received, a binding undertaking from the promoters".
As I understood it, it was the Committee which asked for it and the promoters who agreed to supply it, not the other way round.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is misconceived and inappropriate. As the Select Committee correctly pointed out in paragraph 19 of its special report and as many noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Davidson, have said, Parliament has not yet incorporated a system of environmental assessment into private business standing orders. Parliament may do so in due course, but, as the Committee itself concluded, the promoters of private Bills are currently under no obligation to incorporate an environmental assessment under current standing orders.
To suggest now that the promoters of a Bill should anticipate or should have anticipated not only what the House itself might decide to do about environmental assessment but also how the Government might apply the EC directive is quite impractical and unjust. The promoters are mindful of the environmental impact of the proposed jetty at Immingham on the coastline itself at Immingham and on the immediate hinterland. The local authorities which cover Immingham—namely, the Cleethorpes Borough Council and the Glanford Borough Council—have expressed no anxiety whatsoever about the environmental impact of the new jetty. They both support the project.
To suggest that the promoters should carry out an environmental assessment many miles inland from Immingham, in areas of the country in which ABP has no business activity, is both impractical and unreasonable. ABP is in no position to say whether coal or any other commodity which may be imported through Immingham might be moved by road through the streets of a particular village in Yorkshire or Nottinghamshire. ABP will not itself be involved in buying, selling, distributing or arranging the transport for such commodities, be it coal or any

1483
other commodity. Its business is to build the port that the nation needs and to satisfy the local authorities which look after the port areas that the ports are environmentally acceptable. This it has manifestly done.
I again remind the House of another important point made by the Select Committee which considered this Bill in great detail. In paragraph 20 of its report it is stated:
"They agree with the Promoters that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road".
I should like to pick up another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. If I heard him correctly, he made the comment that it was at the very last minute that the promoters of the Bill brought forward as a defence—perhaps he will forgive me if I do not use the correct word but I am not sure whether he used that term—that the local highway authorities had that right. As I pointed out in my opening remarks—and I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Grey, who also made the comment—it was only at the very last minute that the environmental assessment issue came up at all. So it is hardly surprising that the comment regarding the rights of the local highway authorities was also at the last minute. It could hardly have been earlier.
This is not a matter which was not put before the committee or not considered carefully by the committee. Indeed, the opposite is the case and the committee came to the firm and unanimous conclusion that the Bill should be allowed to proceed and that the request for an environmental assessment should not be accepted.
There was a huge weight of evidence put before the Select Committee. With the exception of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, who with the greatest respect I think I could call neutral, and the two speeches from the Opposition, all the speeches and in particular those from members of the Select Committee rejected the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and supported the Bill.
I trust that in the circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. But if he does not do so, I urge the House to reject it handsomely. This Bill is good for the ports industry, good for the people who live and work around the ports and, above all, good for the nation. I commend it to the House.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting and long debate. Inevitably there was a little repetitiveness. I make no excuse for having raised this matter on behalf of myself and particularly my noble friend Lord Underbill. On his behalf I should like to thank all noble Lords who have expressed their good wishes for his speedy recovery. I shall certainly convey their kind words to him.
I said that I make no excuse for having raised this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord. I remember an occasion in another place when I was at the other end of a long debate such as this one. In fact, it was
1484
rather longer than this debate. Some of those who have been in the other place may remember the great tenacity with which the present Father of the House could take up some points. I listened for four and a half hours while he discussed whether or not there should be a quarter-mile spur of railway into Canvey Island. But he was making a very important point. He took rather a long time to do it but the time was part of the point that he was making. That is why I make no excuse for raising this matter tonight.
I should like to thank everyone who spoke on this Bill. There is no doubt that Immingham in particular is a deep water port that has been built for coal. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who said that he was a member of Associated British Ports, will know exactly the composition and balance of coal and other materials which come in there.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am sorry that I am forced to rise because of the comment by the noble Lord, who suggests that this project is being built for coal. I made it perfectly clear that the company is building it for a wide range of industrial and commercial uses. I cannot allow that statement to stand without challenge.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I referred to the facilities for 200,000-tonne berths. I cannot foresee such berths being built other than for coal. I do not refer to the other facilities. I believe that three berths will be built. It is because of the struggles that the mining industry has had that there has been this great disturbance. It is doing well. We believe that that success could be taken away because of a particularly advantageous balance of currency between a foreign country and ourselves. Over a period of five years the mining industry could be even more disadvantaged. That is why we have raised the issue.
Many points have been made. On a small point—it may indicate the feeling of disquiet that some of us have had—I thought that I had explained that the local authority control of heavy goods vehicles is very limited. It cannot stop heavy goods vehicles; it can only reroute them, and it has to reroute all heavy goods vehicles in an area. It is quite an important point that has been overlooked by those supporting the Bill.
I shall read the statement of the Minister with great care. I do not believe that he satisfied his noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I thought I had a slight feeling from him.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I must challenge the noble Lord. My noble friend's statement was absolutely up to the expectations that I had. I was delighted to hear what he said. I hope that it will receive wide publicity not only in the country but in particular in the coalfields.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I shall read the statement with great care. I did not have that impression. I have always had great respect for the noble Lord since we met in committee in about 1966. I thought that I had in part an ally regarding

1485
doubts over what his noble friend Lord Davidson said. However, I shall read what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Rights of Way Bill
10.58 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was introduced in another place by my successor in my former constituency. I am grateful for the opportunity of supporting him.
The Bill brings forward a piece of much needed legislation to deal with the long-standing problems of the rights of way over cultivated land. A large part of that problem is that the present law, which is set out in Sections 134 and 135 of the Highways Act 1980 as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
The existing law is concerned only with ploughing. It therefore does not cover other legitimate needs of the farmer who has to disturb a path or a bridleway for some other reason. Nor does it address the problem most likely to be encountered by path users of paths that are affected by growing crops. It is because of that confusion that farmers have not always been as diligent as they might otherwise have been in respecting public rights of passage. Therefore walkers and riders have a rich vein of justified complaint. The result, I am sorry to say, has been conflict and unhappiness all round.
In an effort to resolve some of these problems, a voluntay code of practice on Ploughing and Rights of Way was prepared by the Rights of Way Review Committee. The code, which was published jointly by the Countryside Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture in the summer of 1986, was sent to all farm holdings. Sadly, it failed to have the desired effect. Farmers who took the code to heart were unfortunately let down by the larger number who did not. A survey of the conditions of rights of way carried out by the Countryside Commission in 1988 still found ploughing and growing crops to be the most frequent source of complaints and difficulties of those who wanted to use the footpaths and bridleways of this country.
It was against that background and at the invitation of the Minister for Housing, the Environment and Countryside that the Rights of Way Committee reconvened the small working party which drafted the original voluntary code. It was then asked to identify the changes in legislation that were needed to give statutory backing to the existing code. It is as a result of the work of that working party, and the happy coincidence that my successor in another place was lucky enough to draw a high number in the Private Members' Ballot and his good sense and judgment in taking up the subject, that we have the Bill before us tonight.
At the start the working party identified a number of objectives that the new law must meet. They were straightforward and simple. The law must be as
1486
straightforward as possible so that every farmer can have a clear understanding of what he must or must not do. The law must recognise the legitimate interests of both the farming industry and the users of the paths and bridleways. It must also recognise the whole cycle of cultivation which creates disturbances at various times throughout the year. The Bill will make it perfectly clear that responsibility for complying with the new law rests on the occupier of the land. However, the local authorities will have clear powers to act swiftly if there is default and, where necessary, to carry out the work required and to recover their costs.
The working party has succeeded admirably in ensuring that these principles and the others that it identified are reflected in the Bill. In short, the Bill replaces the farmers' right to plough with a wider right—the right to disturb any cross-field footpath or bridleway, as necessary, when cultivating a crop regardless of the nature of the operation or the type of machinery used. This not only covers ploughing but all other preparation of the seed bed and subsequent operations such as mechanical weeding, hoeing, ridging and the harvesting of root crops. Growing crops are specifically addressed by the sensible and reasonable requirement that all unsurfaced highways be kept clear of all crops other than grass at all times.
Any disturbance to a path that is not directly related to a crop, such as the installation of drains in a field, can also be authorised by the highway authorities. Consent can be given for up to three months to allow the temporary diversion of a path while such a major operation is going ahead.
There is no doubt that the key to encouraging greater compliance with the new laws lies in ensuring that the highway authorities have clear powers in order to act if a farmer or landowner is acting in default of the Bill. In addition the local authorities have power under the Bill to recover any costs they incur in restoring a footpath or bridleway.
The new Schedule 12A that the Bill inserts into the 1980 Act provides the powers that the highway authorities need to act swiftly, with a minimum of formality, to deal with illegal disturbance such as the ploughing of a headland path; to restore or mark the surface of cross-field paths in default of the occupier; or to clear crops which are growing or encroaching on any unsurfaced highway. The schedule also gives extra power needed to cross the occupier's land, to gain access on to the site for machinery or equipment and to recover the costs of doing so.
The schedule sets out minimum and maximum widths for each class of right of way. Thus the farmer will know exactly what is the minimum width to which he must work in restoring paths and keeping them clear of crops if he is to avoid running into trouble with the local authority. The minimum width is also the width that will be taken into account in any prosecution. The maximum width is slightly wider. It provides tolerance for the local authority when acting in default to accommodate different widths of machinery and available equipment and will limit minor arguments about the exact width which has been cleared.

1487
It will be clear from what I have said that the Bill is a comprehensive and carefully balanced package of measures. No one set of interests is favoured. The Bill ensures that the law is changed fairly and effectively to resolve the present difficulties and uncertainties.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Kimball.)
11.6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for sponsoring this Bill in our House and particularly for the way in which he has introduced it. As he has said, the Bill involved a working party of the rights of way review committee. Taking part in the discussions were the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the British Horse Society and the Ramblers Association together with others. They reached agreement in an astonishingly low total of four meetings. It shows what can be done in a spirit of co-operation, even on such touchy subjects as rights of way.
At this hour I do not propose to cover the Bill in detail although I particularly approve the use of the word "disturbing" in place of "ploughing" to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred. That clarifies a rather difficult question of definition.
A majority of farmers and land owners tolerate the existence of rights of way through their land. They may not welcome it but they will respect any sensible legislation which protects or provides for such rights. A majority of walkers are prepared also to accept and respect sensible rules about using rights of way. Some may not like restrictions. No doubt some may feel that the right of all mankind to walk freely on the land, as in the ancient Scandinavian every man's right, should apply also here. Nevertheless, they will stick to the rules. That accord breaks down when otherwise peaceful walkers find their recognised route obstructed by impassable objects or obliterated by neglect or crop cultivation. This evening I do not propose to discuss the subject of bulls which is constantly raised in this context. However, I am sure that that is an obstruction encountered far less than some would have us believe.
It is often frustrating for walkers to have to find an alternative route; it is certainly to the detriment of the land holder. Of course, on both sides, there are exceptions to the reasonable norm. Some land holders will deliberately obscure and obstruct rights of way and some walkers will abuse a facility by carelessly leaving open gates and scattering litter. We hope that this sensible Bill will serve to deter both sets of wrongdoers by clarifying many of the points in existing law and by giving legal backing to existing codes. It should be supported by all of us.
There is one point about which I am not quite content. Wherever a prosecution is required, the Bill provides that only the highway authority or the non-metropolitan district, parish or community council can bring proceedings. It could well be that a particular offence seems minor in terms of the
1488
local authority. It could therefore be given a low priority in present straitened circumstances. But there could be great distress being caused to local people. Also in a rural situation a preponderance of land-holding interests on a council could lessen the priority that might be given to such action.
I suggest that we should try to introduce the possibility of some local organisation being able to bring proceedings in default of action by the local authority. I say local organisation because I would not wish to give this power to individuals. That could open the way to abuse by cranks or by purists of one kind or another. But a genuine local organisation that has been upset by the obliteration or the blockage of a footpath should have the right to persuade everyone to take action. I believe that the threat of possibly being able to take action would be enough in itself That said, I welcome the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for introducing it and I hope the Government will give it a fair passage.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, have both indicated to me that this Bill is going to be widely supported. It was indeed the Ramblers Association and the British Horse Society which were instrumental in negotiating the Bill's provisions. Both organisations belong to the Outdoor Pursuits Division of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The CCPR, the umbrella organisation to which most governing bodies of sporting and recreational activities belong, supports the Rights of Way Bill wholeheartedly. It believes that its provisions will greatly benefit riders and walkers by improving access to the countryside. No restrictions beyond those currently set out in the code of practice will be placed upon farmers and in certain ways landowners, and the natural landscape will benefit.
I wonder whether I may draw your Lordships' attention to just three aspects of the Bill. First, as regards the scope and nature of the problem, the Bill will affect the lives and recreation of an enormous number of people. The Countryside Commission believes that the figures to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred show that between 10 million and 20 million people walk or ride in the course of every year. Its survey of the condition of rights of way published last year shows that on average a walker or rider has only a 70 per cent. chance of travelling two miles without encountering difficulties. This figure deteriorates to a 90 per cent. chance in the arable country of East Anglia.
Ploughing was singled out as the most important obstacle to be encountered along the 140,000 miles of public footpaths and bridleways in England and Wales, and ploughing is the second aspect of the Bill on which I want to speak. Ploughed routes pose special problems for riders and their horses or ponies. A horse's hoof makes a far deeper impact upon ground than a human foot, turning soft ground into mud; and a clay soil may take years to settle. A horse or pony can sink up to its hocks in clay and as a result it can lose a shoe and suffer undue strain to tendons or ligaments. Sharp flints can also surface

1489
as a result of ploughing and may injure soft parts of the hoof or cause blood poisoning from flint cuts.
Since a path must be restored so as to render it reasonably convenient, it should be recognised by landowners that some ground, especially heavy clay soil or earth containing large flints, cannot be suitably restored except by expenditure which would obviously outweigh the advantage of the original disturbance. The Countryside Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture and the local authorities who will have to enforce the Bill's measures might like to advise landowners of this difficulty through guidance notes.
The third aspect of the Bill that I wish to mention is the obvious benefit to the farmers themselves and to the countryside. The CCPR suggests that the Bill will benefit not only the public but also farmers, since properly defined paths will ensure that riders and walkers do not stray into fields and trample crops. This is particularly important in areas where the grubbing up of hedges has removed natural markers and a sharp turn in a path becomes almost impossible to spot. Disruption caused by all forms of ploughing limits walkers to the obvious routes. It intensifies their use and contributes to erosion and disturbance, especially of moors and hill country.
In conclusion, this Bill must be viewed as an accepted compromise. It cannot have been easy for the working party which framed the Bill. There are bound to be conflicts of interests when involving the DoE, MAFF, NFU, CLA, the Association of County Councils, the Rights of Way Review Committee and the Countryside Commission. All are to be congratulated on their co-operative approach.
It should be stressed that any farmer who has observed the code of practice on the ploughing of fields crossed by rights of way has nothing to fear from the effects of this Bill. Since the contents of the Bill are now settled and agreed by all parties, it is fervently wished that the Bill will have a speedy passage through this House and will reach the statute book in time for the commencement of the next ploughing season in August. Indeed, with the prospect of another dry summer it would be of great benefit if the Bill received Royal Assent by July.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I looked at this Bill I rapidly came to the conclusion that it was one of the best and least contentious Bills that I have seen since joining your Lordships' House. The Bill sets up workable rules by which farmers will know exactly what they have to do with footpaths and allows walkers to use those footpaths. It also allows agricultural work to carry on. It specifies for farmers exactly how long they can do such work and what they have to do after the work which has disturbed a footpath is completed.
On those grounds alone there is no way in which anyone can realistically criticise the Bill, though when something is universally praised one always worries that there may be something the matter with it, in the same way that when something is universally condemned one knows that there has to be good in it. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has
1490
possibly identified one area of weakness, in that there should be some machinery by which certain interest groups other than those mentioned in the Bill are at least consulted about prosecution. That point certainly deserves careful consideration and I would not be at all surprised if it was considered beneficial to include it in the Bill.
Those who live in the country and who are not landowners are likely to benefit greatly from the Bill. I say that for the simple reason that if one lives, for example, in East Anglia, as I have for a large part of my life, one finds that large areas of the countryside are heavily cultivated and, for historical reasons, there is very little heathland left. Such people have less access to areas to exercise their dogs or themselves than people who live in cities and have access to parks. Thus, I suggest that anything that keeps open the rights of way that exist, and keeps them open at a reasonably usable level, is wholly to be welcomed. Having said that, I wish the Bill well.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I too would like to support the Bill. The point made by a number of noble Lords is that it represents a remarkable compromise and a collaborative effort by diverse and disparate interests which, over many years, have been engaged in conflict, sometimes almost ending up in fisticuffs, as disputes over rights of way have developed.
The Bill is a great tribute to the rights of way review committee which set up the working party. It produced a code which was observed by some but not by all. That body has gone on to produce clauses for a Bill that was introduced by Mr. Edward Leigh in another place. The review committee is chaired by my own Member of Parliament, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, who spoke at Second Reading in another place. He and his predecessor, Mr. Michael Spicer, M.P., deserve the highest credit for their chairmanship of this remarkable group of people who worked together to produce the Bill.
There are one or two points that I wish to make which seem to me important. The Bill is not a comprehensive measure. It deals with two specific problems; namely, ploughing and crops. It introduces definitions and clarifies the duty of landowners and occupiers both as to the time of reinstatement and its dimension. That will be enormously helpful in clarifying the law. But there will be an ultimate sanction.
It must be the hope of everyone that the sanction of prosecution will never have to be used. That can be avoided because the Bill gives clear and specific powers to the relevant local authority, after due procedures, to do the work itself and to charge the landowner for any cost. Faced with the possibility of the local authority first doing the work and then charging the landowner or, alternatively, prosecuting, the vast majority of landowners will be sensible and recognise their obligations.
The point that one must make to landowners, partly in their defence, is that rights of way are part of our history and heritage. In many places they go back for centuries. They represent the way in which

1491
country people went to work, church and school. In many cases they still do. They use these paths and bridleways and other rural rights of way to achieve their purposes. Therefore, in that sense, farmers are not being asked to give up anything, but merely to recognise a fact which has existed from time immemorial and which their predecessors in title will have had to take account of as well.
The landowner replies that the situation now is quite different. It is not a question of children going to school but of organised parties of walkers. I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, use the term "walkers". The word "ramblers" for me conjures up the wrong image. I bristle. Rambling rhymes with shambling. There are people whose speech is rambling as no doubt mine is. It is a derogatory term. I know that the Ramblers Association has a long and honoured history as a campaigning organisation for the benefit of walkers. I find it quite difficult to reconcile myself with the name. It is my prejudice and I accept that.
The fact of the matter is that ramblers are quite different people from those who used the rights of way in earlier times. They are people who, perfectly legitimately and properly, come out from the towns, sometimes in quite large groups. They do not have a culture which is embedded in rural wisdom and experience. Sometimes that is what creates difficulties. There are also a great number of new rural dwellers who are themselves emigrants from the towns and cities. That is again an element that has nothing to do with people who earn their living off the land.
Over most of this century and before one has been dealing progressively with a steady increase in the numbers of people, as my noble friend Lord Kimball mentioned, who go walking. That is what has created the difficulty, the problem, and in some cases the conflict and bitterness which is now in this narrow field being resolved.
We have to exercise some self-discipline on the Bill because there will be a temptation to try to go further. We should be most unwise to do that. If we do not carry the Rights of Way Review Committee we shall merely stir up new conflicts. What gets my goat is when walking quietly on a right of way through the moors to have a gang of people come roaring along on motorcycles or in jeeps or buggies. They apparently have a right to do so because from time immemorial someone was entitled to take a donkey cart or bullock cart across the hills on the right of way. I strongly urge the Rights of Way Review Committee to deal with such matters. Of course people wishing to take part in motorised sports must be able to do so, but it cannot be right that quiet rural areas where one goes to study wildlife and to watch the birds can be disrupted in this hideous way by motorcycles and cross country vehicles. However, I shall exercise restraint. I shall not put down an amendment about them. The Bill must get on to the statute book and if we start cluttering it up with other measures we may make it a good deal more difficult.
I warmly welcome the measure. I congratulate all those who have been responsible for its drafting and
1492
production. I warmly commend my noble friend Lord Kimball for sponsoring it in this House, and like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords who have spoken, I hope that it will reach the statute book in July. It is important that we should get this working as soon as possible.
11.27 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, on bringing this Bill before the House. I also congratulate this remarkable working party, which got away with four meetings on what has for years and years been an extremely contentious subject. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said about rights of way. They go right back into history and are of enormous importance. They were of importance in the past. They were used by people to go to church, to go to work and so on. But now, with a vastly larger population, which is a town population on the whole, wishing to go into the country and learn something about it, in a strange way this amazing network is more important than ever before.
I speak as a farmer who operates over a large area with an enormous number of rights of way of all sizes, which I may say do not quite coincide with what I see in the Bill. I believe that the farmer's greatest protection is the rights of way on his farm. They give him the opportunity to approach in a polite way people whom he may feel are trespassing and point out to them that they can get a rights of way map from the local council. He can point out where the rights of way are and where they go to. I must have done it a hundred times. On the whole, the recipients of my advice have been grateful and only on a few occasions have they not been quite so grateful as I might have wished. My advice to any farmer is that it would be simpler never to plough up a right of way than to go through the palaver of having to put one back again.
That leads me on to one or two questions which I feel must be asked at some stage. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to answer them. First, an expression is used in relation to what a farmer must do within the periods—14 days, 24 hours and an extension of, perhaps, 28 days—laid down in the 1980 Act. He must "make good" the right of way. It is a very imprecise expression in my view. It would be interesting to farmers, and probably interesting too to the highway authority, which also has to "make good" if someone falls down on his duties and is prosecuted, to know exactly what this expression means. Clause l(3)(a) provides that, if the occupier has disturbed the surface he must,
"make good the surface of the path … for the exercise of the right of way".
However, to "make good" can mean anything from smoothing it over with a harrow to putting down grass seed, which, of course, in the winter would not grow in any event. I am sure that this cannot be clarified in the Bill, but it would be useful at least to hear my noble friend's opinion on the matter.

1493
The second matter which troubles me to a certain extent is that at the very beginning of the Bill it states that you are not allowed unlawfully to disturb. I am not sure what that means. As well as ploughing and disturbing, and all the other words which the noble Baroness mentioned, farmers quite naturally use the rights of way for their own traffic. For example, they run tractors and other machinery up and down them. Tractors make ruts and create mud, and so on. Moreover, in the South, where the soil is free-draining, we feed our cattle for perhaps 150 days in the year. Some people may say that we have disturbed our rights of way. Our normal practice is to put them right in the spring when the grass seeds will grow.
I should like to receive some indication as to whether this normal farm traffic travelling up the rights of way is considered improper; or, alternatively, whether it is all right to use them in this way. By the same token, one wonders about these four-wheel drive trucks and the motorcycles which roar up and down before you can see where they have come from or where they are going. I should like to know who would be held culpable for that situation at the end of the day.
There is also one small technicality which features later in the Bill which I think should be considered and which might even become the subject of a small amendment. It concerns the crops growing on to or leaning over the right of way. I think that the Bill refers to crops other than grass and then continues to define grass in a particular way as being a crop used for silage and so on. We should at least be aware of the fact that all the cereal crops are grasses. I do not feel that these have been left out intentionally. Although it is arguable that they are not often used for silage, oats in certain parts of the world and in certain circumstances can be used for that purpose. It would be a great pity if these situations had to be resolved by way of case law rather than being put right in the first instance by this House.
My final query—and I apologise for being so awkward at this time of night—concerns the width of the right of way. I have a list of our statutory rights of way at home. They come from the "enclosure awards", as we call them. The biggest one is a 40-foot carriageway which goes down through a bridleway to a footpath. On the whole, they are all bigger than the sizes stipulated in the schedule. Does this mean that people can now shrink their rights of way? That would seem to be quite unreasonable. Alternatively, does it mean that, if they wish, they can let a proportion of them become overgrown or that they can plant a row of trees on either side? Further, does this obligation to keep the area clear have an effect on the actual size of the rights of way as they exist? Of course I appreciate that there are many different sizes all over the country and that some have no defined width.
Having said that, having been awkward and having spoken for too long at this time of night, I must emphasise that I wish the Bill well. In my view it is a very important measure and I hope that it leads to a great rapport between the townsmen and the countrymen.
11.35 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I shall not keep the House long. I should first declare an interest as a farmer and walker. I believe that I see both sides of the problem. I support the Bill in principle. It will be of great benefit to farmers and walkers. If one comes to an unmarked area or path that one does not know, one ends up going in the wrong direction.
There are one or two points which need looking at and to which I should like some answers. A council may provide for a temporary diversion. Many councils, especially urban councils, may merely decide that they will not do so. There should be an element of "shall" or "without reasonable cause" or something similar. Merely to leave the provision as "may" could lead to some councils saying no. In many cases that would not be right.
My noble friend mentioned the making good of surfaces. The question there is whether they should be made good to the original condition or a better condition. That is a point which could lead to confusion.
Width is of particular interest. First, one does not walk over one metre of path. Does one metre of path mean that the whole metre should be level, because that is absurd? All walkers know that most paths are about a foot wide. The Lyke Wake walk is much wider, but that is a different affair. Most paths have a piece about a foot wide where everyone walks. One must accept that. The farmer will have to flatten a yard of path which will not be used. He may then grow a crop. It could well be rape, which grows about five feet high. Unless the farmer spends all his time going up and down his paths, that rape will fall over.
Does the legal metre which is necessary mean from the tip of the rape onto the footpath? If it does, the footpath must be three metres wide to allow for the rape. If it is not that wide and the rape results in the path being one foot wide only, the farmer is liable to a level 3 fine. That matter could well be the subject of prosecutions by over-zealous officials. The path should be one foot wide, because there is a difference between the path and the gap. That is a point which should be considered.
11.37 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I say from the Labour Front Bench that we give the Bill a warm welcome. We wish it well. This is the third day this week that I have been in the House at this time of night. I have listened to about 140 speeches: 60-odd on Monday; 40-odd yesterday; and 40-odd today. On a number of occasions I heard Members say that everything that they wanted to say had already been said, but that there were one or two more things that they wished to say. They then proceeded to speak.
By the time the clock shows the figure two I shall have sat down, because I understand that it is the unanimous view of the House and another place that the Bill is good. Reference has been made to a number of points that need to be clarified. My noble friend Lady Nicol reminded us that the Bill is the product of Mr. Haselhurst's committee and that it has the full support of the NFU, the CLA, the Ramblers Association and the British Horse Society.

1495
When I read Hansard of the other place I saw that more than 20 associations were involved in it. I do not say that we are wasting our time, but we are taking up time needlessly. It has been a long week. It is late at night. The other place took three and a half hours to arrive at the stage which I hope we shall reach in the next three or four minutes. I wish the Bill well, and I sit down before the clock shows two minutes.
11.39 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I wish to say straightaway that the Government strongly support the provisions of the Bill before us, which were fully and ably explained to the House by my noble friend Lord Kimball in introducing the Bill. It provides a useful opportunity to clarify the law in an area where it has been generally acknowledged that more needs to be done to ensure that the whole of the rights of way network, which now extends to 140,000 miles in England and Wales, is properly protected. The Bill has the support of both users of rights of way and farmers. Such a unique consensus in issues often generating strong emotions and conflicting views is a significant achievement as recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding among others.
The Countryside Commission's recent survey of the condition of rights of way found that ploughing of rights of way and growing crops over them together constitute the most significant factor interfering with public enjoyment of access to the countryside.
There has been genuine concern that the law regarding the restoration of paths after ploughing is frequently disregarded by farmers. However, highway authorities have been reluctant to prosecute, partly because of uncertainty over what is meant by ploughing. Despite the work of the Rights of Way Committee in drawing up a code of practice, compliance has been far from universal. The Government asked the committee to consider how the law might be clarified and better enforced. This Bill is the result of its intensive work.
The NFU and the CLA have given the proposals strong support. Farmers will welcome the clarification of their right to disturb the surface of any cross-field footpath or bridleway in the course of cultivation and their responsibility to restore the path and maintain a clear right of way. Most importantly, the farmer who presently restores paths after ploughing in accordance with current legislation will have nothing to fear. His position and responsibilities will remain unchanged.
We believe that making the obligations of farmers clearer should achieve a substantial reduction in the number of offences. Also, by giving clearer powers to highway authorities, where the law is disregarded, to carry out restoration work and charge the full cost to the farmer, the Bill provides an effective mechanism for highway authorities to take action without resorting to the courts.
We recognise the need for advice to farmers, if and when the Bill reaches the statute book. The Right of Way Committee will be discussing a revised
1496
code of practice for farmers covering detailed advice, including how best to keep a path clear of crops. The Government will issue circular advice to local authorities, drawing attention to their powers.
Present disregard of the law has soured relations between landowners and users, particularly at local level. This Bill is deliberately self-contained, focusing on a single issue where there is agreement. While there are a number of other areas where there is conflict, we believe in the main that these can be settled by the more effective management of rights of way and by involving landowners, users, highway authorities and parish councils in joint discussion and practical action. The Countryside Commission's work in encouraging local liaison groups is particularly important and commendable.
Nor need more effective management require significant extra resources. This Bill, as well as encouraging greater compliance, will make enforcement easier for highway authorities. Their annual expenditure in respect of their statutory responsibilities for rights of way is just £14 million nationwide out of a national aggregate local authority leisure and recreation budget of £1 billion. Only a small re-allocation of expenditure would show significant benefits for countryside recreation. The Government have demonstrated their commitment by increasing funding to the Countryside Commission. Its grant in aid of £25-136 million in 1990-91 will be £2-9 million more than the previous year and we have suggested that part of the increase should be used for access initiatives.
My noble friend Lord Radnor asked me certain questions. I listened carefully, and I shall read tomorrow in Hansard what he said with respect to crops and grass. The Bill contains a straightforward definition which has been agreed by the NFU and it would be difficult to amend it without damaging the consensus support. However, we would of course consider any proposal that is put forward. I should like to write to my noble friend with respect to the questions of definition.
The Bill has proved that consensus is possible and that it is the best means of achieving positive benefits. It is an example we should seek to replicate. I congratulate the Rights of Way Review Committee on its successful efforts and I commend the Bill to the House. Private Members' measures are notoriously fragile barques; I urge the House to give this one a speedy and successful voyage.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, in conclusion perhaps I may follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and thank him for his support and express my thanks for the support which the Bill has received from his side of the House.
Before the Committee stage we shall look at the major points that have been raised in this short debate: the question of prosecution by local organisations and the questions that have been raised from this side of the House by my noble friends on what I call the shrinkage of rights of way. We shall look in detail at the question that has been raised by my noble friend Lord Radnor on the definition of grasses.

1497
I should like to follow the lead given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. There is no question but that the next issue that we have to look at in the countryside is the invasion of the new, modern Japanese tricycles and four-wheel drive cross-country vehicles. I do not believe that we should include those in the Bill, but my noble friend has put down a very important marker which we should all consider.
I am grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House for their support. In conclusion I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Salmon Conservation Convention: Infringement
11.46 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are planning to take against infringement by ships flying flags of convenience of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation's convention on salmon fishing in international waters.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknoweldge that the Government have meant well towards the salmon industry of Scotland. They have, after all, passed the Salmon Act 1986 which was intended to make up for years of neglect by successive governments. They thoughtfully introduced into other legislation measures to relieve from rates those fisheries which tried to put their own houses in order by forming district fishery boards. They also brought into being the advisory committee which was to examine the effects of the Northumberland drift net fishery on Scottish salmon stocks and other matters and report.
Then, unfortunately, logical thought deserted them and, casting aside the obvious conclusions of their own scientific researches, they listened to a Johnny-come-lately on the Scottish salmon industry scene in the person of the Scottish Tourist Board and arbitrarily deprived the legitimate coastal netsmen (who had fished for centuries without damaging stocks) of a sizeable chunk of their livelihood by lengthening the weekly close time. At the same time the English drift net fisheries are allowed to continue to predate upon Scottish salmon stocks, Irish boats brazenly get away with illegally fishing on the high seas off the west coast of Scotland, and now we learn that Danish boats are re-flagging under the Polish and Panamanian flags to fish for salmon on the high seas, thereby endeavouring to circumvent the NASCO agreements.
Information which I have received suggests that a vessel called the "Minna" (an ironic name indeed in that the "Minna" was the name of one of Scotland's honoured fishery protection cruisers) of 84-48 GRT, owned as to 75 per cent. by Pol-fish Ltd. and as to 25 per cent. by Danish interests, flying the Polish flag, although previously it had been Danish registered, and crewed by two Danish citizens and three Polish citizens, entered Torshavn harbour on 18th January last fully equipped for long-line fishing for salmon.
The Faroese police were openly informed that the vessel intended to undertake salmon fishing in international waters and then land the catch in a Polish harbour. There have also been reports of up to seven vessels operating in international waters off the Norwegian coast. On 2nd February the "Minna" returned to Torshavn for repairs. Since her previous visit she had caught 5 tonnes of salmon. The catches were made in seven long-line sets at approximately 65° North and 4° East, north of the Faroes. The number of salmon caught in each set ranged from 181 to 720. If you add together the larger and smaller of those figures, you get the average catch on the Thurso River each year. The average weight of those fish was estimated at between 4 kilos and 4-5 kilos. The skipper intended to return to the same area, catch up to 25 tonnes of salmon and then return to Poland.
In addition to that information, I have also been reliably informed that a Faroese fish exporter has been approached by a foreign company about buying 360 tonnes of salmon from four foreign vessels operating in north-east Atlantic waters. The Faroese nobly refused to grant a licence, but no doubt some other buyer will be found.
That surely indicated the existence of a massive danger to Scottish salmon stocks in comparison with which the legal Scottish coastal netting is about as dangerous as the activities of a small boy with a bent pin.
I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government: what is their policy on this problem? Do they acknowledge the size and extent of it? What measures will they seek to see implemented within the EC to stop that illegal fishery? What do they intend to do to persuade other countries which are not parties to the NASCO convention either to become parties or to control their own fishing fleets in such a way as not to endanger the salmon stocks of the North Atlantic? Finally, while they are trying to find a means to combat those massive dangers, will they rescind the mean-minded and purely cosmetic cuts which they have made in the fishing time of the legal inshore netsmen?
11.53 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all aware of the great knowledge of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with regard to the habits, catching, by both net and rod, and processing of salmon. Those of us who were involved in the 1985 Act—it gave me a shock to realise that it was as far back as that—realise that his knowledge of salmon was a great contribution to our proceedings in the House.
In this instance, the noble Viscount has brought to our attention an issue that is vital to Scotland, particularly the north and eastern coasts of Scotland, where it appears, according to the information that I have received from NASCO, that our seedcorn could be destroyed. I understand that illegal fishing appears to be taking place in those waters, so that within a few years serious inroads could be made into the spawning salmon coming up to the famous east coast rivers of Scotland.

1499
I have received the same information as the noble Viscount; namely, that Danish nationals are getting round the convention by flying Polish and Panamanian flags and are catching significant quantities of fish. I understand that the subject will be under discussion at the next council meeting of NASCO in Helsinki in two weeks' time.
It is important to realise that NASCO is a responsible organisation. As the Minister will know, its headquarters are in Edinburgh and its convention was signed by most countries involved—Canada, the USA, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, the European Community and the USSR. It deals with salmon conservation and it has dealt with quotas, so we must take seriously its reports, both verbal and written, and its advice. I understand that there have been diplomatic approaches to Poland and Panama and that Iceland has protested to Poland, but I am not sure whether that was a formal complaint.
I think that Poland should be able to put an end to violations of a convention, given the position just now of Poland. It is important to Poland to be seen as a responsible country, particularly in a period in which it is concerned about help and aid, economic and otherwise, from the West. I understand that similarly America has protested to Panama, which is another of the countries whose ships' flags are being used. Again, in view of Panama's dependency on the United States, I hope that it could also take action to prevent the abuses that appear to be taking place.
But it is also the case that NASCO should protest as a group. Signatories to the convention should be able collectively to highlight violations by other countries even if those countries are not themselves signatories to the convention.
We should be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for raising this matter. It is a matter about which we should be able to do something. I believe—with my limited knowledge of salmon, most of which I have obtained in this House and a great deal of it was from the noble Viscount—that it would be very short-sighted if we were not to take steps as soon as possible to do something about this illegal fishing in the North Atlantic.
11.56 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Viscount for raising this matter. I shall be quite specific and rather more lengthy in my explanation of the events surrounding these unfortunate episodes. Before I do so, however, I must first thank him for his kind remarks about what the Government have done for Scottish salmon fishing. I know that he will understand that it is a difficult matter trying to deal with enforcement action regarding the Irish and drift netting off the west coast of Scotland.
Co-operation between ourselves and the Irish authorities at practical enforcement level has led to improved coverage around the United Kingdom-Irish median line. That contributed to a
1500
number of Irish vessels being detained and prosecuted by their own authorities in 1989. All I can say to the noble Viscount is that we are trying to tackle this difficult problem of illegal fishing, and the arrangements for this year will be just as tough as they were for the previous two years when we tried to tackle this issue with a great deal of determination.
On the question of the north-east drift net issue, the noble Viscount mentioned that this was a remit of the Salmon Advisory Committee. I have to say to him that it was specifically not a matter for the Salmon Advisory Committee. The question of the north-east drift nets was one thing that was not to be left to that committee but in fact was a matter for ministers. I can only say about the review that the scientific analysis is in the final stages of preparation. Ministers will then have to consider the implications and will report to both Houses as soon as possible thereafter.
Perhaps I should not say it but I know that the noble Viscount has perhaps a bee in his bonnet about the weekend close time. I respect him for that because he argued the case very well when it was discussed in your Lordships' House at the time of the implementation of the order. It is true that the levels of effort and consequent catches of salmon by traditional netting methods have reduced sharply in recent years. That is perfectly true. That is the result of private purchases of netting rights from willing sellers as well as a change in weekend close time. However, I am not persuaded that that change is undesirable in the broader public interest. That is where we differ.
First of all, higher catches are now achieved by angling, which has greater economic multiplier benefits to tourism, as the noble Viscount recognises. Secondly, salmon farming can now provide a vastly greater quantity of salmon for the table and reduced exploitation must improve access to spawning grounds. But the major issue on which I wish to report tonight is the problems in the high seas with regard to some vessels.
It might be helpful if I were to explain to your Lordships that the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) was set up in 1984 and that its objective is to promote the conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of north Atlantic salmon stocks. At present, there are nine contracting parties to NASCO covering all the "home water" coastal states for salmon throughout their range in the north Atlantic from the USA to the USSR. The European Community is a contracting party represented by the Commission, and so too, separately, is Denmark in respect of its special relationship with the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
The convention is perfectly clear on the matter of fishing for salmon on the high seas. Under Article 2(1) of the convention, fishing for Atlantic salmon throughout the convention area is prohibited outside the fisheries limits of coastal states. Moreover, within the fisheries limits of the coastal states, the contracting parties have bound themselves to prohibit any fishing for salmon, by any method, outside the 12-mile limit from the baselines from which their territorial seas are measured. There are

1501
some variations to these limits around Greenland and the Faroe Islands so as to enable the prosecution of the traditional salmon fisheries further off their coasts. But the Greenland and Faroes salmon catches are tightly regulated, as the noble Viscount will know, by quotas and set on the basis of impartial scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The quotas are supported also by a number of effort restrictions agreed in NASCO. The NASCO convention, in effect, applies the principles enshrined in United Nations treaties on the law of the sea which have consistently recognised the special position of salmon; and the rights in that regard of coastal states with home spawning rivers for the fish.
There is also Community legislation which seeks to discourage fishing for salmon in that part of the north Atlantic which lies outwith the control of the Community or its member states. In essence, it is an offence under EC Regulation 3094 of 1986 for vessels to bring into EC waters any salmon or sea trout which has been taken in the non-EEC part of the north Atlantic.
I come now to the activities of certain foreign vessels, which the noble Viscount has raised. Over the past few months or so there have been a number of disturbing reports of large scale and apparently illegal fishing activities in international waters. These waters, broadly speaking, are off the north-west coast of Norway and fishing for salmon has been by vessels registered in countries which are not contracting parties to the NASCO convention.
There has been a complex series of events and sightings of vessels. In September 1989 it was reported that heavy penalties had been imposed by the Danish authorities on the three Danish owners of vessels which had been operating under the Panamanian flag of convenience. The court was reported to have found that in all material respects the vessels were considered to be Danish with no genuine links with Panama. Penalties in excess of £2 million were imposed for their illegal salmon fishing in the north Atlantic.
In December last, officers from my department on a Scottish fisheries protection vessel made a routine inspection off the Shetlands of a long liner vessel, "Brodal", which had a large quantity of salmon on board which the skipper believed to be in the region of 30 tonnes. The skipper was a Danish national and the crew came from Bornholm: but the boat was owned and registered in Panama. The skipper claimed that the fish were caught by long line in international waters over a period from mid-October to early-December. The vessel was on its way to land the fish at Kolberg in Poland. There was no reason to doubt that the salmon had indeed been caught in international waters. Details of the incident were passed both to the Danish embassy in London and to the Commission of the European Communities, the contracting party to NASCO.
In January, the Faroese reported to NASCO the activities of the Polish registered vessel "Minna", as the noble Viscount has so accurately said, which put into Torshaven in the Faroes. The vessel had salmon on board and had been fishing in international
1502
waters well to the north of the Faroes. The skipper claimed he would return eventually to Poland.
I understand that in Denmark the police intercepted on its way to Poland a vessel which was carrying salmon. This boat—inappropriately named "Uncle Sam"—was one of those engaged in salmon fishing in international waters between Iceland and Norway. The boat came from Bornholm in Denmark but was registered in Panama. The Danish authorities are carrying out investigations into the involvement of Danish nationals. The vessel intercepted is the subject of legal proceedings in Denmark. The catch of salmon valued at about £60,000 has been confiscated. I understand that a number of legal issues—in particular the applicability of the Community and NASCO measures forbidding salmon fishing beyond 12 miles to EC nationals operating under flags of convenience and carrying salmon through the fisheries limits of member states—are currently under investigation, including references of points of law by the Danish court to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg.
We share the concern of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord about these events. So do all the contracting parties of NASCO. We have discussed the issues with the Commission of the European Communities and have communicated all the information we have on the sighting we made. We have raised the matters bilaterally with representatives of the Danish Government and we have stayed in very close touch with the secretariat of NASCO.
It is a clear duty under the NASCO convention for contracting parties to invite the attention of any state not party to the convention to any matter relating to the activities of vessels of another state which appear to affect adversely the aims of the convention or its implementation. The Danish Government, as a contracting party, have been extremely active. The US, currently holding the presidency of NASCO, has taken a positive line in discussions with the Panamanian Government. Action has been taken too with the Polish Government and assurances have been given of their willingness to assist in preventing the undermining of the principles and practice of the NASCO convention by the use of flags of convenience.
We anticipate that the various legal proceedings and diplomatic exchanges will be fully discussed at the annual meeting of NASCO which is due to take place next week in Helsinki. Indeed, as an indication of the seriousness with which these activities are viewed a specific agenda item is to be devoted to the question of this thoroughly undesirable fishing for salmon in international waters in contravention of the international conventions on law of the sea.
I can assure the House that our firm and continued advice to the European Communities—and the line that we shall take on these worrying developments at the NASCO meeting—will be to uphold, by whatever means are practicable and appropriate, the principles of the NASCO convention.
I hope the noble Viscount will accept that these matters are being tackled vigorously by the various

1503
fisheries authorities. The Danish authorities are taking a firm line. Although the most recent prosecution must still be regarded as sub judice, the vessel in question is still impounded until the legal issues are resolved in the European Court of Justice. Our response to this problem has been to alert fishery protection officers on land and at sea to be on the look-out for suspect vessels, several of which have now been identified by name. Whenever possible, such vessels will be boarded and inspected. If evidence of illegal fishing is found the vessel will be detained and the report submitted to the prosecuting authorities.
There is a general determination to tackle this problem quickly before it becomes more serious. Some of the issues, however, are for international authorities or bodies and it may take a little time to ensure that their efforts are effective. Nonetheless, the problem is being tackled and I hope that the various points that I have been able to make will reasure the House, that the Government and all contracting parties involved in these unfortunate affairs are taking the matters extremely seriously.
House adjourned at nine minutes past midnight.