Lords Sitting of 16 May 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Religious Broadcasting by Satellite
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the relationship between satellite broadcasting and religion.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, under the Broadcasting Bill the Independent Television Commission would have power to allow religious groups to own non-domestic satellite channels, such as Sky, if it were satisfied that this would be appropriate. The Bill also includes requirements that religious broadcasting must not be offensive, exploitive or otherwise irresponsible.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I very much welcome the lifting of the proposed ban on religious bodies owning satellite television stations, which occurred since I put down my Question.
Is the noble Earl aware that extremely complex problems now arise? First, can he assure the House that on-the-air fund raising will not be allowed on religious stations? Can he also give some indication of the criteria that will be used to distinguish between mainstream religious bodies whose broadcasts would be welcome and fringe bodies, such as the Moonies, whose broadcasts would not be at all welcome?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on the second part of my noble friend's question, it will be up to the Independent Television Commission to decide the criteria on which licences are allocated. It will obviously take into account the safeguards in the Bill which are intended to ensure that religious broadcasting is carried out responsibly and is not open to abuse by religious extremists. It will obviously expand upon these requirements in its code on programme standards.
On appeals, Clause 7(1)(b) of the Bill puts the Independent Television Commission under a duty to issue a code, including rules which will have to be observed, on appeals for donations of all kinds. I expect the commission to take great care in covering the areas to which my noble friend referred.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in the light of the genuine concern about the ownership, as opposed to religious programming, of channels by religious bodies, are the Government satisfied that the ITC will be able to regulate the religious content of
294
broadcasting from non-domestic satellites if the channel is based outside the UK? What action can be taken over unacceptable religious broadcasting from non-domestic satellites?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it will be open to religious organisations, if they so wish, to purchase non-domestic channels for broadcasting. If they abuse this position they will come under the scrutiny of the ITC, which in the end has the power to remove such rights.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what provision is being made for the large section of the population which has no religious faith at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those people can switch the television off.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the immense relief and gratitude felt by most Christians that their views will be considered regarding religious broadcasting and that amendments to the Broadcasting Bill are being made? However, there remains a concern about satellite broadcasting of religion. It is that in the very proper desire to balance religious freedom with responsible control and so to exclude cults or narrow Christian sects, there should not be exclusion of major Christian groups such as the Evangelical Alliance which are not totally ecumenical yet are far from being narrowly cast.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite understand the anxiety of the right reverend Prelate on this matter. That is something that everyone shares. The ITC is the body that must decide the criteria. That is an important point. That body must take into account the safeguards that the Bill contains which are to ensure that religious broadcasting is carried out responsibly and is not open to abuse by religious extremists. I hope that covers the point made by the right reverand Prelate. The ITC will have to draw up its own codes of practice. The position will be made clear when that happens.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, on a point of order, is it right to use Question Time in order to anticipate the Second Reading of this Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware that anyone was anticipating the Second Reading. I answered the questions that were put to me, and I believe those who asked the questions were perfectly entitled to ask them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am deeply disappointed that he did not achieve his usual high standard in answering my question? Surely, he must agree that one of the purposes of religious broadcasting is to put over a certain viewpoint. It seems to me quite proper that someone who does not hold that viewpoint should also be allowed to put across his opinion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think there is anything to stop anyone from putting over their viewpoints. The anxiety that my noble friend has is whether or not religious organisations can own channels. Religious and non-religious organisations can own channels. I am certain that many of the points which the noble Lord opposite has in mind are fully covered in what is disseminated on television at the moment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a tradition of Christianity in this country, and that most of us feel that all the values which we hold most dear to our hearts and our way of life stem from Christianity? We would expect therefore that legislation in this field would cater for that view.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the point my noble friend makes is a fair one. There has been a long tradition in British broadcasting which applies the concept of religious broadcasting in a way which reflects the range of religious views which exist in this country while giving proper weight to the tradition of Christian belief. I do not think it is easy to put that into a specific formula.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, will my noble friend explain to me how Her Majesty's Government can control religious broadcasting in a good or a bad way if the programmes that are broadcast on satellite television come from areas outside the control of the Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not try to control what is broadcast. It is up to the Independent Television Commission to do so.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, how will the codes to which the noble Earl referred distinguish between blatant fund raising and genuine alms-giving which is surely an important part of religion?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is also a valid point. The ITC will have to produce codes of practice and rules which will have to be observed. When producing those, the very points which the noble Lord refers to are bound to be taken into account. However, I cannot anticipate what the commission will state in the codes of practice.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one way forward in this difficult and perplexing area would be to have a religious station jointly owned by the mainstream religions, including the Jewish faith, from which we draw a great many of our values? Would that not be a truly ecumenical venture?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I daresay it might be. I have no doubt that it would also have a certain amount of acrimony attached to it as these things usually do. However, that does not matter. There is nothing to stop such a conglomeration of people getting together and purchasing a station. I remind my noble friend that for the first time under the Bill
296
Christian and other religious groups in the United Kingdom will be able to own the following: radio stations; channels carried on cable; and channels carried on non-domestic satellite services. That is a great step forward.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of the complexity of this matter which has been demonstrated this afternoon, will the Government require the ITC to publish the criteria on which it will judge whether to license religious broadcasting channels? I fear that if it does not, there will be even more confusion and anxiety.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should like to consider the point made by the noble Baroness. I should imagine that the criteria will be published; but I prefer to reserve judgment on that point, if I may.

Inflation: Estimate
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the rate of inflation in May 1979 and what is their estimate of the likely rate of inflation by 31st December 1990.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the all-items RPI annual inflation rate for May 1979 was 10.3 per cent. Retail price inflation is expected to fall to around 7.25 per cent by the end of this year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is 11 years since the Labour Government left office? Is he further aware that the trade unions are now well under control as the Government constantly remind us, and that we cannot import inflation these days because the countries with which we trade have a much lower rate of inflation than we have? Who is to blame for the 9.4 per cent. inflation rate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the comparison that the noble Lord seeks to make. I am also aware that under Labour the average inflation rate was 15.5 per cent. whereas under this Government it is 7.9 per cent. As the noble Lord is aware, inflation rose as a result of looser monetary supply than we would have wished following the stock market crash when it was agreed by all nations that interest rates should be reduced. Indeed, the party opposite wished us to reduce interest rates even further than we did and more quickly.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, do I not detect an element of dejd vu about this Question, having regard to what took place at Question Time on Monday?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. We are treading very familiar ground.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in that case there will be no objection to retreading a little of the

297
ground that was made a little obscure the other day. Is it not the case that the Government's record on inflation is not quite as unsullied as one might be driven to believe in that inflation reached 22.5 per cent. in the first quarter of 1980 and resulted in the decimation of wide sections of British industry? There is no need for the noble Earl to be so coy about the matter. If he cannot predict with any reasonable accuracy the degree to which inflation will fall marginally towards what it was, can he say when unemployment in this country is likely to decrease by a million to its level when the noble Earl's Crovernment took over?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord chided me the other day for straying from the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord seeks to do that now.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is true that those who wish to maintain the value of their earnings need a wage increase of the same rate as inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a most important point. The headline rate of inflation is not a fair comparison for wages. A more appropriate measure would be the tax and prices index which showed a rise last month to 7.7 per cent., which is considerably different from the headline rate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this Government have now been in office for 11 years. They have always said that their first priority is to reduce inflation. Who is responsible for the fact that inflation has risen rapidly over the past two years, particularly in view of the bonus from oil revenues? Whose responsibility is it? Is it not that of the Government? Is it not the case that so far as concerns inflation the Government's policies are seen to have failed utterly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is the Government's duty to bring inflation down, and we shall succeed in doing so. One of the reasons for the substantial rise in the headline rate of inflation was the change from rates to the community charge when local authorities applied the equivalent of a 34 per cent. rate rise which added 1 per cent. to the index. I hope that the noble Lord will take this opportunity to condemn those high-spending local authorities.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only alternative to the present system, which has been suggested from time to time, is credit control? Can he tell me which other countries have used credit control as a means of contain ng inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, using credit control to reduce inflation does not work. As Mr. Greenspan, the chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, said:
"In the short run the Federal Reserve can hold down nominal interest rates but the result largely would be more inflation".
298
More apposite to us is the Bundesbank's remark:
"The Bundesbank can only work indirectly by appropriate fixing of interest rates".
It is clear that interest rates is the method by which we can bring down inflation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl respond precisely to the question put by his noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls? How many countries use credit controls in the fight against inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the exact number, but all European countries use interest rates.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, have the Government considered a possible alternative to raising mortgage rates to astronomical levels, which causes great unhappiness and homelessness, with the excuse that they are combating inflation? Why should they deliberately create homelessness and anxiety among people who can no longer afford the houses which they began to purchase a few years ago with the excuse that there is no other solution to bringing down inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the result of the increase in inflation has been high interest rates, which inevitably react on mortgages. I know that the noble Lord will agree with me that inflation is ultimately much more serious than high interest rates. The noble Lord will recall that in the 'seventies pensioners' savings were reduced by a third during the term in office of the Labour Government due entirely to inflation. Under this Government those savings have risen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that most other countries require the banks to place a significant proportion of their deposits at the central bank? Will not the Government reconsider their policy and insist that the banks place at least 8 per cent. of their deposits with the Bank of England, which would damp down credit and make a considerable contribution towards bringing down the rate of inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the minimum reserve requirements of some banks. That is merely a device to control interest rates. The German constitution will not permit the banks to act in the way that the Bank of England can through Treasury bills. Therefore they use an alternative method known as the minimum reserve requirement. That is purely a device to control interest rates.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last week in another place the Prime Minister said, in dealing with the problem of inflation, that the Government:
"got the growth going a little too fast"?— [Official Report. Commons, 8/5/90; col. 17.]
How does he explain the difference between that reason and the one that he has given me? In addition,

299
will he give a little more detail as to what is meant by:
"got the growth going a little too fast"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there was a substantial amount of growth in the economy. There has not been for many years such a long, sustained period of growth as under this Government. That, combined with the loosening of monetary policy following the stock market crash, has led to inflation. That is why we need high interest rates to bring it back down.

Cyclists' Safety Equipment: VAT
2.58 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will exempt crash helmets and other safety equipment designed for pedal cyclists from VAT.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I understood that that was the Answer. I am sorry about that; I had hoped for something rather better. Is the noble Earl aware of an article which was published recently in the British Medical Journal, titled "Cyclists Need Helmets", which pointed out that cycling is next only to motor cycling as the most dangerous form of travel? Motor cyclists' helmets have such an exemption from VAT. Is the noble Earl aware that, despite the danger, cycling is becoming more popular because—apart from the danger of accident and sudden death —it is a healthy convenient and clean form of urban transport? What are the Government doing to encourage cycling and make the world safer for cyclists?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I gave that answer because it would be contrary to European Community law to extend our current VAT zero-rating provisions. The relief for motor cyclists' helmets was introduced in the 1974 Budget and, whereas the sixth VAT directive allows member states to retain zero rates which were in force on 31st December 1975, we cannot widen the scope of existing provisions nor introduce new ones.

Directors' Salaries: Private Sector
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to offer advice to directors and senior managers in the private sector as to what would be appropriate increases in their own salaries and benefits, and if so what.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to offer such advice to businesses in the private sector. Pay is a matter for those who negotiate and determine it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the CBI has indicated its support for wage restraint, and says that managers and directors should not pay themselves more in dividends and salaries than they earn; in other words, it cuts all ways? Do the Government agree with that principle?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is bad for industrial morale if workers see people at the top of their companies awarding themselves large increases when the workers are told that they should keep their claims within the rate of inflation? Is it not inevitable that our competitive position will be damaged if industrial morale is damaged in that way?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on the question of pay, the most important thing to remember is the main principle of pay; namely, the need to recruit, retain and motivate the right people for the job within what businesses themselves can afford. That must be true whether you are at the lower level of the pay scale or at the very highest level.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the past 40 years the trend under governments of both complexions has been to get the Government away from fixing incomes, even in the public service? Does he agree that to have government interfering in that way in private industry would be most unwise?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am not sure whether noble Lords opposite are suggesting that we should interfere.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why it is inappropriate for the Government to advise managers to keep their wages under control when they constantly advise other workers to keep their wage claims under control?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are entering the area of semantics. The Government have always maintained that pay increases should be affordable and should be decided by businesses. That is right and that is what the Government have continually done. That is what the CBI has done too.
Lord Jay: My Lords, are the Government aware that, as long as they tolerate company chairmen payingthemselves half a million pounds a year, there is no chance whatever of the working population generally listening to the Government's appeals for pay restraint?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are not talking about levels of pay, but about pay increases. On that subject there are numerous examples of major British companies whose directors have taken pay cuts. A noble Lord opposite, from a sedentary position, asks me a supplementary question about naming those companies. The figure for Guinness was 18 per cent. lower, for Pilkingtons 21 per cent. lower and, for the National Freight Corporation, 11 per cent. lower. The list goes on.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that his answer contradicts that of his noble friend Lord Caithness, who has just left the Chamber and who told the House on what figures wage claims should be based? If that is so for wage claims —he gave us specific answers, as will be seen in Hansard tomorrow —why cannot the Government say something of the same kind about the claims for directors' fees?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend the Paymaster General was comparing the tax and prices index with the retail prices index, which are two different things. The Government, including both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Howe, have said that leaders of industry should set a good example in pay determination. I entirely endorse that approach and believe that noble Lords opposite agree with that view.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are not the Government to blame in this matter because they have set the position and given the lead where greed and avarice thrive?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a disgraceful suggestion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has not the Government's wages policy always been made clear; namely, that wage increases should be kept within the rate of inflation and preferably below? Has not that policy been pursued by the Government in relation to those who are employed in the public service? Have not the Government also resolutely refused to reproach those who advocate the restrictions and who at the same time pay themselves £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 more a week, apparently with impunity? Is the noble Lord aware that, speaking in Tokyo only a couple of days ago, Mr Nicholas Ridley, the chief of the Department of Trade and Industry, said:
"Britain also has one of the lowest labour costs in EEC"?
Next time the Government seek to give advice to ordinary working people, will they bear those observations in mind?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am suprised that, with his wealth of experience, the noble Lord should confuse two issues—first, the new unit price of labour costs and, secondly, the level of pay. The two are not connected. The Government have always made the same statement on the question of pay; namely, that the companies should be able to afford it and that they must pay regard to international competition when setting those wage levels. That is important and that is why we had one of the highest productivity growth economies in the 1980s.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, whenever the Government make a statement about inflation, they refer 99 times out of 100 to the wage earner? Will they continue to take the same attitude in support of the CBI which believes that managers and directors should not give themselves excessive pay rises on the one hand and call for
302
restriction on the other? Is he further aware that 43 per cent. of the work-force of Great Britain consists of lower-paid workers, two-thirds of whom are women? Is it not about time that those at the very bottom should have a break and those at the top should, as the CBI argues, hold hard to give other folk a chance to catch up?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can only repeat that pay is for businesses themselves to decide. However, we have always maintained that leaders in industry should set a good example in their own pay determination.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and as the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of both short debates this means that all other speeches could be as long as 14 minutes. However, I know that the House would prefer noble Lords to keep their speeches within limits slightly more compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Europe: Cultural and Social Co-operation
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester rose to call attention to the case for European co-operation in matters cultural, humanitarian and spiritual; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in preparing for a conference in Malvern for 1991, the title of which is, "Threshold for Europe, Britain's Heritage, Britain's Future", I have become deeply drawn to the subject of this afternoon's debate. I can only set the scene. I hope that noble Lords will develop some of the important issues. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and of the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter.
It must now be less than a thousand days to the completion of the single European market. If we were to think of that event solely in terms of setting up a market for 320 million people, we should lose a great opportunity. That is not to deny the importance of prosperity. Prosperous mercantile nations have in the past always been those which have nurtured civilisation. The exchange of goods has always gone with the exchange of ideas.
Nevertheless, Europe possesses other assets which are beyond the material and upon which we should also capitalise.
In an uncertain world I believe that we have a common culture, a common faith and some common experience of democratic institutions. I am proud to be British but I rejoice to be also European. Young people now go to Europe as easily as I would have gone to Manchester at their age. Furthermore, I am told that one-third of our population crosses to Europe every year. In the past we have fought battles for freedom on the soil of Europe. We must now fight them again with other weapons; namely, ideas, our own collective wisdom and a certain spiritual vitality.
On 5th April the European Parliament again stressed that it saw the single European market as more than just an economic entity. It went on to grapple with social and environmental issues. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether it is also the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it will be more than just an economic entity.
What do we mean by Europe? It is surely more than the 12; and more than the 23 of the Council of Europe. It must include those nations which have so recently reclaimed their freedom. In 1942 Winston Churchill expressed the view to Anthony Eden that the European family would act in unity within a council of Europe. In 1950 when that council was launched, he said that the doors were open for all to come in, including our friends from the East, if they shared our purposes. He hoped that the great Soviet Union would also come in. If so all would indeed be well.
How can we keep that spirit of optimism alive and well? Recently in Strasbourg Sir Geoffrey Howe is reported as saying:
"When Gorbachev comes in July, he will speak about the Common Home. He need look no further. Here it is".
Does that represent the considered view of Her Majesty's Government?
For 40 years the Council of Europe has stood for greater European unity, the principles of parliamentary government, human rights, the improvement of living conditions and for human values. I believe that it needs greater affirmation and greater resources. In view of what has been achieved by that council over the years, it would be a pity if other institutions were to be set up. It has recently unanimously agreed to invite all nations involved in the Helsinki process to join it for a full session once a year.
But whatever institutions are proposed for Europe, they will be ineffective if we do not revive the spirit of the people. I quote the well known words of Shelley:
"I care not who writes your laws so long as I may write your songs".
We have a great storehouse of joy in what we call European civilisation. Not for nothing do we speak of what we call the humanities; in fact they make us understand more keenly what it is to be truly human. However, it is not with high culture that I am most concerned. It is in the field of popular culture that
304
enormous efforts must be made. In the terms of history, the media explosion is fairly new to us all. We have to ask questions such as: What values do we have, what values do we want and how can we establish those values? In default of wrestling with those questions, we recruit more and more police, build larger cages in our football stadia and introduce even greater prohibitions. These questions about values are not just posed from rectory studies in Barchester. It is clear from listening to the radio and television that they are questions being asked by philosophers, politicians and educationists.
I believe that we must bring together all those who are concerned with youth, whether they be churchmen, sportsmen, educationists, media people or others. We cannot make people good but we must seek the conditions through which the best can come out. We must surely welcome schemes such as ERASMUS, Yes to Europe and Tempus, by which students and business people may make useful exchanges in training and get to know each other, expelling the xenophobia which bedevils everything. In matters humanitarian there is an urgency that people should be considered as well as policies. There is also an urgency that Europe should look outwards to poorer nations in the rest of the world. If Europe were to look only inwards to its own rich man's club, it should be failing in leadership.
Other noble Lords will, I hope, speak about conditions of work and unemployment. The new market in 1992 may produce as many as 2 million new jobs but I am told that as it develops there may be as many as 3 million further unemployed people. The European Parliament recently confirmed that it is committed to the care of the elderly. It will dedicate 1993 as a year for the elderly and the solidarity of all age groups. That is to be welcomed.
At this time I want to draw attention to the needs of the family as the basic unit of society and to the needs of children. There will be much migrant labour, many people will be working a long way from home, and it is desirable that governments should put their weight behind the defence and protection of the family. I sit on the council of the Children's Society and my friends there are asking for a European Community programme for the care of children. It may be considered temerarious that this debate should be initiated from these Benches. I know that the story of the Christian Church includes the story of intolerance, bigotry and power corrupting the institutional church. It also includes the story of saints, martyrs and social reformers.
Time will not allow me to speak of the way in which, centuries ago, the Venerable Bede constantly observed that it was the Christian faith which gave England its unity and identity. Something similar happened after Rome had disappeared and Christianity enabled Europe to see a further day of civilisation. Our Judaeo-Christian faith has shaped many of our institutions. It has caused us to value the human person and to affirm human communities. Twice in our lifetime materialistic and repressive regimes have tried to dominate Europe and have failed to do so.
It is not enough to say, "We have won. " The consumerist and competitive society also has its

305
problems and can create disillusion. There are questions that we avoid at our peril. A society which never asks, "Who are we? What is the chief end of man? What are our duties as well as our rights?" is increasingly vulnerable to the insentience and folly of those who would plunder it, including the demagogue and the commissar.
I dare to think that the mainstream Churches are prepared to come to the new Europe in a spirit of humble service. They must work together in their own spirit of glasnost. It has been the wars of religion and the desire of the Church to dominate which in the past has secularised Europe. If they try to do so again, the Churches will almost certainly invite the revenge of the secular environment.
Recently, however, we have seen the Church in Poland, East Germany and Czech-Slovakia providing the grit for the people to survive with their dream of freedom intact. Last year an ecumenical assembly in Basle treated with the subjects of "Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation". It was awsomely realistic but hopeful.
Vaclav Havel has reminded us of the need to dream dreams and see visions if we want the seemingly impossible to become a reality. I believe that the Churches will be allies in this and with all others who seek to renew the soul of Europe. I beg to move for Papers.
3. 22 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it falls to me on behalf of your Lordships to thank the right reverend Prelate for raising a matter that takes us a little above our normal passion for exchanging statistics across the Floor of the House. The subject that he has raised is an important one, and we look forward to it being further illuminated by our two maiden speakers, one ecclesiastical and one lay person.
In listening to the right reverend Prelate, I was encouraged, as I am sure were other noble Lords, by the indications of the interest not only of the Churches but of other organisations and movements in this country in what is happening in Europe. As he reminded us, there is in the younger generation an unprecedented degree of interest. On the other hand, it is desirable that policies to be pursued must be realistic. I share with him a belief in the Council of Europe and its work. Not everying looks as good as we thought it might be in that year of expectations, 1989. There are very grave difficulties with regard to both the newly emancipated, or in some cases only semi-emancipated, countries of Eastern Europe and the countries of the European Community to which we belong.
It looks as though in central and eastern Europe one result of the lifting of the long Soviet night has been the re-awakening of what were its characteristics for so many centuries and which to some extent explain the faiths of its people, their divisions among themselves and not least their religious divisions. One can see emerging on the map the old fault lines between Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Uniate which for some time we have thought were submerged in common misery. We also see the recrudescence of such political, ethnic and linguistic: divisions arising from their cultural
306
history. One would consider that the Czechs and Slovaks had a great many more practical things to do than to spend their time arguing whether to put back the hyphen between Czech and Slovak. Those are not nice things, and in some parts of Europe they have led, and may lead, to actual violence.
On the other hand, in the West we face the social problems to which the right reverend Prelate referred. It seems incredible that at a time when youth is so hopeful in some respects, other aspects of its behaviour give cause for such anxieties. That links with what the right reverend Prelate said about the third world. We face the eruption on to the western European scene of ethnic rivalries and problems which did not exist previously to the same extent, through the inevitable migration from poorer countries to richer or more hopeful countries. It has been a characteristic of human history over the centuries.
The subject has been referred to in other debates. In this country, France, Germany and the Netherlands we have not found the right balance between the need to retain a single cultural —perhaps spiritual—impulse which can help us to solve our problems and the need to allow for appropriate differentiation.
In that sense the problems of Europe are from the Atlantic to the Urals. Nobody can forecast where the next dramatic explosion calling our attention to our weaknesses in some of these respects may come from. Noble Lords will have read about the desecration of Jewish cemetries in France. That has produced the hitherto unknown spectacle of the president of the Republic walking in a procession to express national regret. It was a moving gesture on the part of the French president and his prime minister; but the fact that it needed to be made in the country which for a couple of centuries was thought to be, above all, the country of the Enlightenment is a grim reminder of what can go wrong. Anti-semitism has had a long history in France. It is clear that it has been fuelled by the apparently equally difficult problem of how to deal with the growing North African minority.
Again and again we see that there are common problems. Whether they can best be solved in co-operation, as suggested in the wording of the Motion, or are those which each government must face in its own way with whatever encouragement it can obtain from its friends or neighbours, is an open question. It is true that we are not yet at the stage when a European impulse can make up for national deficiencies. Being "good Europeans" is a nice comment to make about ourselves but, in the end, what governments can do is not determined by their European adherence.
There are ways in which governments can and should co-operate. We see an example in the relatively minor but significant element of football hooliganism. Because of the element of confidence involved, the more important question is: how far is there full and genuine co-operation between European countries in the management control, and eventually one hopes extirpation, of terrorism? Perhaps in reply the Minister will tell us the progress that has been made in the Trevi agreement. The

307
Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hurd was then Secretary of State for Home Affairs and he was principally concerned in that agreement.
If some countries mistrust the genuineness with which others regard dangers to themselves—their citizens or their national unity—some of the high hopes based upon co-operation in matters cultural, humanitarian and spiritual are bound to be dashed. There are those who are enemies of our joint civilisation. For instance, there are the neo-nazis (to use an umbrella term) whose activities now stretch from East Germany to France and who in a limited way have an impact on thinking in this country. It is obvious that their activities which cross frontiers must also be challenged by common consent.
Whether it is possible to make a difference through the educational exchanges to which the right reverend Prelate referred, is difficult to say until we have a generation to measure the impact. The problem is that much of what people want done has to be done tomorrow, today or, in some cases, yesterday. Suddenly to call on enough people to teach the English language to the newly-freed nations of Eastern Europe, which would be of considerable benefit to them in a number of ways, and to do that overnight, is clearly asking too much of the resources that we have at out disposal.
Again and again we come up against serious practical problems. That is not to say that they cannot be resolved; but anyone who asks us to embark on exploring the whole range of issues must be prepared to face the evil as well as the good.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am fortunate to be able to take part in a debate which unusually has been introduced by a right reverend Prelate. It is infrequent that our debates are initiated from the Bishops' Bench. I was attracted to the debate for two reasons. First, it was being introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. It was in Worcester that I made my only address in a cathedral and it was on a topic to which I shall refer in a moment. It is not surprising to find that the subject and the speeches that we have heard are as suitable to the pulpit as to your Lordships' House. I have not the slightest doubt that the right reverend Prelate has indulged in such thoughts during the course of his administrations.
The three broad headings offer an opportunity for a high-level philosophical debate. I do not know enough about culture. I am a stranger to spiritual thought and activity and, therefore, I have chosen to speak about humanitarianism. In that area we have a broader common denominator in our European associations than we have in the other two.
Of the three subject headings that we are given for the debate the one with which we can deal in a practical way is the humanitarian attitude towards the welfare of animals. It was on the subject of animals that I made my address in Worcester Cathedral. I clearly remember criticising the doctrine of early religious teaching about the supremacy of
308
man over the rest of the animal kingdom. I criticised the subjugation of the animal kingdom, its use and the subordination of all living things on land, in the air and in the sea to the use and pleasure of human beings. I dissent from that philosophy.
I am a little outraged to find that by a new and rising prophet by the name of Gummer we are being recalled to that ancient philosophy about the use of animals. We are now told that it was one of God's intentions that we should eat animals. During the past 24 hours ! have searched the Book of Genesis. I was surprised to find that a copy is readily available in your Lordships' House. It bears no sign of use but it was sufficient for my purpose. The modern authorised version of the Old Testament reads more like a fairy tale than anything I remember reading at Sunday school. I found nothing in the Book of Genesis about eating animals, although I did not have time to read it all.
The relationship between man and the animal kingdom is becoming one of the great philosophical and practical issues as regards future life on this planet. We must realise that if the planet is to survive, attitudes that have been bred into mankind and fostered by religious beliefs and practices must be abandoned.
Throughout Europe there are differing standards in the humanitarian approach to the welfare of animals. In Spain there is bullfighting. There are also the abominations of the fiestas at which unspeakable cruelties are inflicted on animals. There is the shocking slaughter of migratory birds in Italy. Men go out wearing cocked hats and feathers, with rifles and bags to shoot birds no bigger than thrushes as if they were brave men conquering the turbulent wildlife around them.
Throughout the Mediterranean basin there is much hardship inflicted on animals. There is cruelty to horses in Greece and torture to human beings in Turkey as if they were animals. All in all, we do not have a very clean sheet here in many respects as regards the treatment of animals. Therefore there is a common denominator throughout Europe which can be separated from the differences of culture to some extent. It can be somewhat detached from spiritual thought and activity where mankind tends to think of his own soul far more than he thinks of the care of animals. Why is it that religion has been founded on the selfish concept of the salvation, existence and future of man? I suggest that that is not in keeping with the broad concept of the development of a planet as unique as this in the universe.
In Europe there is a body known as the Eurogroup. Its members are representatives in the European Parliament and its aim is to look after the care of animals throughout Europe and beyond. It is doing very good work indeed. It could do with some support from the Church. All animals could do with that. The broader view which can now be taken not only of humanitarianism in Europe but throughout the world is one in which, with great respect, those who occupy important positions in our ecclesiastical and religious life should now be seen to participate.

309
The Eurogroup is active in the European Parliament. With pressure it brought about the cessation of the import of products from the culling of seals in Labrador. It is seeking to overcome some of the cruel practices as regards the treatment of animals in Europe. We want more punch and power behind that group. No great change can come about in humar affairs without it taking its place in the pulpit. Also, not many great changes in history have come about without them having been in the police court. There is no doubt that the combination of the pulpit and the police court has brought about social change in our history. I am not suggesting that one needs to go into the police court as regards animals, although occasionally one might do so.
That is my message this afternoon. I need take no longer to deliver it. Action needs to be taken. Although at present we need not be concerned with the details of the action, there is a broad common denominator of interest and a broad concept of the standard of humanitarian treatment of other species, in respect of which we can cease to elevate ourselves on a pedestal, which we deny to every other living creature. That is something for the right reverend Prelate who introduced this debate to take back with him. If he does so, that will be very worth while.
3.45 p.m.
The Marquess of Exeter: My Lords, I ask for your indulgence, especially in view of my accent. I am glad to speak before your Lordships for the first time. I greatly appreciated the words of the noble Lord who preceded me about care for nature and for animals in particular. As we move into the last decade of the century, we must take into account the fact that concern for all facets of life will be very much to the fore. Consideration of co-operation on matters of culture, humanitarianism and spirituality is most timely with that in mind.
We seen to live in a time of contrasts. On the one hand, there is in Europe an apparently inexorable movement towards unity at political levels as well as economically. At the same time, as has already been mentioned, there are strong fears on the part of various groups in different parts of the region about the loss of independence. We see that same contrast emerging throughout the world. My home is in Canada and that is taking place within our boundaries between the English and French speaking people.
What is it that can allow for a genuine togetherness, agreement and co-operation? That is something which must exercise your Lordships. What is ot be done in Europe as a whole? In examining the question of culture or spirituality one must see that behind those thrusts lies a fundamental desire for wholeness. That was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The natural world is dependent on the attitudes which we take towards it. As has been said, that has very often been overlooked because of our own self-preoccupation as human beings. It appears that we have been more anxious about our own salvation than about the salvation of the planet.
310
The movement of events is such that we shall all be forced to take that broader picture into account. John Muir, an American naturalist, said:
"When someone tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world".
That is what we are being forced to come to. Whatever our personal attitudes as individuals in the world, they affect the broader scene which is much greater than we have been willing to admit to ourselves.
I attended a conference in France on the theme of our common European home. Various representatives from Eastern Europe were speaking about environmental matters in their part of the world. For example, I was interested to note the conflict which is presently taking place between Czechoslovakia and Hungary over a large hydro-electric project on the Danube which is being developed between those two countries and which also involves Austria.
All parties are concerned about environmental issues, but from different standpoints. The Czechs are evidently concerned about their use of coal for the generation of power and the effect of air pollution on their forests and more generally. The Hungarians have other concerns. Seemingly they have difficulty in getting together on this. How is that situation to be resolved? Traditionally we tend to argue matters out and then come to some kind of compromise which does not fully suit anyone. However, these days with such issues as environmental matters, it is not one or two countries alone that are concerned, as the occurrence at Chernobyl in the Ukraine reminds us. There was radiation even in the water supply of Vancouver, not far from my home in Canada.
How are global issues to be taken into account by people who are concerned merely with local matters? It seems to me that there is a need for a new approach to education. I was pleased during the recent conference to come into contact with some teachers from Hungary. They had been giving serious thought to these issues and recognised that something must be done to inspire in the young a broader view of the world and a sense of personal responsibility for it. Obviously that is more than just an offering of words by teachers. The adults concerned need to have that kind of view because young people depend heavily on the example that is offered to them.
When we look from the West into Eastern Europe there is a tendency to think that we have the answer to all the problems in that part of the world. President Havel of Czechoslovakia recently spoke of his experiences under a repressive regime. He felt as though he was pinned under a boulder, yet in that state he discovered an inner strength which might have been difficult to find in other circumstances. That has given him an outlook of greater toleration and a wider view of the world. There are many who suffered under repressive regimes in Eastern Europe who have a lot to teach us about qualities of character. We sometimes forget that because we are distracted by the fast pace of our industrialised world.
We should not be too quick to rush into that part of the world to convey what we think of as our good

311
news without exhibiting open hearts and an attitude of humility towards what the people in those areas can teach us. There is inspiration for the young, for instance, regarding the qualities of character which really count in life; qualities which are essential in such difficulties as that between the Czechs and the Hungarians on environmental issues, in the discussions between Eastern and Western Europeans, and in the relationship between Europe as a whole and the rest of the world.
If we are to overcome the global problems of the nineties we shall need leadership of a calibre which can take that wider view and can be more open to finding out what works in the largest possible context. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence.
3. 55 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is my good fortune to follow the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, in his maiden speech, and to be the first to have the opportunity of congratulating him on the eloquence with which he handled three themes which are close to the heart of our debate today, and for which we must thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester.
I said the noble Marquess spoke about three themes. First, he ended—if I may put it that way —with lessons that can be learnt from the people of Central and Eastern Europe and from the experiences that they suffered. It is important that we recognise that they wanted to join Europe, not necessarily a simulacrum of our society. Secondly, he spoke with eloquence on the need for us to be educated in the dangers that we have inflicted on our environment. He said that in dealing with that we should act not only as individuals, but jointly and in co-operation.
Finally, from his experience in Canada, he expressed—ably, it seemed to me—two common themes of public expectation which exist today; that is to say, the hope for greater unity and the apprehension that that greater unity will in some way diminish our own cultural identities. For all that I should like to congratulate him and thank him for his contribution.
In this discussion, which can range wide and loosely, I share wholeheartedly some of the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and in particular the dangers which the recrudescence of nationalism, which is very much on the cards—indeed, it is in front of our very eyes—will bring with it. The successors to communism appear to be nationalism and fundamentalism, both of which are fairly unpleasant in many of their manifestations. Nothing has been more shocking than the outbreak of anti-semitism only 40 years after Belsen. Words are an inadequate way in which to condemn such outrages, but silence is equally unsatisfactory.
We should remember one point in that connection—that politicians have a heavy responsibility. I do not believe that the outburst of anti-semitism in France would have been so outrageous and unqualified had it not been for the
312
political posture adopted by M. Le Pen. Leaders in politics have a responsibility for setting standards. If they fail to do so the consequences fall on everyone.
There are many different types of co-operation between countries. Perhaps the most important is that between individuals and between cultures, as it were. There is commercial co-operation. Finally, there is the role which governments and states have to play. It seems to me that the last is in some ways the least important. States can do great damage but I doubt whether they can do a great deal of good. What they can do is ease the flow of commerce—such is the nature of one aspect of the European Community.
Secondly, states can ease the flow of intercourse between cultures and between individuals. I refer, for example, to the history of Anglo-Italian relations. That relationship has hardly at all been between states. It has been almost entirely between individuals and two cultures. It started with Italian workmen coming over here in Elizabethan times and going on to the visits in the 17th century which led to the Grand Tour; the famous visit of Milton to Galileo; the Grand Tour which followed it; the habit of the British settling in Italy, and so on. Anglo-Italian relations really became bad between the states; that is, in the 1930s and 1940s. That would seem to offer a lesson to us in what states can and cannot do in this whole area.
Of course, I suppose that we are concerned primarily with the role of states. What has happened over the past two years or so has been a revolution which has changed the nature of our relationship particularly with the Central and Eastern European countries. Nowhere has the cultural change been more marked than that. Until two years ago cultural relations between this country and, say, Poland, was largely an inter-governmental affair which had to be arranged with some delicacy. There were grave limitations on how far one could go. That applied in a much more restricted sense to individuals. Today, countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and elsewhere are welcoming and inviting Western influence in every aspect of their lives.
Two years ago in your Lordships' House we debated cultural diplomacy. It was generally agreed that the projection of British culture was intrinsically important, not only for us but for those on whom it was projected. The opportunities to project that culture have, as a result of the events of the past few years, vastly increased. The two chief instruments at our disposal, apart from commerce and individuals, are the British Council and the BBC's external service.
The most important asset we have at our disposal is, as we were reminded in that debate, the English language. Of the demand for the English language on the Continent of Europe and within Central and Eastern Europe there is no doubt. I would only say, in that connection, that though we cannot possibly satisfy it fully it is crucial that the resources of the British Council should not be diminished or limited. The British Council has an incredibly important role to play in offering training as well as education.
The Government are encouraging business and commerce to invest in those countries. No

313
investment is more rewarding in terms of the influence it brings, or the financial rewards it will ultimately bring, than investment in English language training. Noble Lords may remember that it was ponted out in the debate two years ago—I declare an interest, having been a publisher for much of my life —that the export of British books is greater in terms of return than the export of British motor cars or pharmaceuticals. Books have the additional advantage that they carry with them a message. There is the further advantage that the people who buy English books tend to be influenced by English ways.
There is; another area that I should like to mention before I conclude—the importance of student exchanges. That aspect can hardly be exaggerated. I should like to mention the admirable work done by the Youth Exchange Centre and the British Council in that regard. However, if we compare that with what is done by some other countries it is seen to be pretty inadequate. For example, the Franco-German Youth Office has a budget of £14 million a year, and that is just for the two countries. It was started in 1963. It funds people up to the age of 25. It organises up to 200 teacher exchanges each year, 500 links in further education and innumerable joint activities.
It has been said in this connection—it may have been by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—that one cannot measure the impact of that kind of youth exchange on the climate of co-operation between countries. I agree that it is extremely difficult to measure. But anyone who in the course of their education spent sometime in another country—I spent a year in the United States—will know that the influence of that experience is never altogether forgotten. Therefore, I hope that in devising policies for co-operation with Europe —East and West —full encouragement for youth exchanges at every level will be made.
If the chief aspect of European co-operation which has changed in the past few years has been that in relations between East and West we cannot neglect the fact that integration of Western Europe, which is going ahead steadily, reveals certain needs which are not being fully met by this country. The chief of those needs is not that we do not teach people English in Western Europe—they seem to learn it by themselves—but that we do not learn their languages Therefore, in thinking about European co-operation and in discussing this whole matter today in your Lordships' House, I believe that we should bear in mind that perhaps a more determined effort to teach foreign languages in English schools—which will mean a massive increase in foreign language teachers; a massive increase on that which we have —should be a high priority in any government's programme.
4.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships as I rise to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester in calling attention to this case for greater European co-operation in these matters humanitarian, cultural and spiritual. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for those cautions grounded in historical scholarship
314
and much study and thought. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his rebuke perhaps to Christians who have over-emphasised the lordship of man but, I think, in unfaithfulness to their foundation documents, since the Old Testament, I believe, and the New where we are enjoined to consider the lilies do indeed enjoin a reverence for the whole creation. I thank too the noble Marquess for his reference to Vaclav Havel, to whom I also wish to refer.
In asking your Lordships for your indulgence as a newcomer I find myself longing nevertheless to keep the impulse of hope and aspiration with regard to European co-operation in these areas very much alive. From my own limited experience I offer three examples. Just a short time ago I was able to accompany a dear friend, the African Bishop of Scroti in Eastern Uganda, to an all-party parliamentary committee in another place not far from your Lordships' House. That Bishop from North-East Uganda was seeking emergency aid for his people. He was seeking both food and medical aid for the people of a diocese who, despite the valiant efforts of the present Uganda Government, continue to suffer from armed insurgency and the danger of famine at this present moment and over the past two years.
After the Bishop had spoken and pleaded movingly for help for his people I was greatly encouraged by something that I was not prepared for. I discovered that several senior members of this all-party committee were able to establish very swift contact not only with our own High Commission in Kampala but also with other European delegations and embassies in that troubled land. I caught a glimpse—it was a surprise glimpse to me—of how at this point European humanitarian co-operation involving medicine, food and security, can look outwards beyond the prosperous Europe to the crises of a country like Uganda which, 28 years on from independence, is still struggling for stability and prosperity.
I suggest that is the tip of an iceberg, bearing in mind the cautions uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in respect of an area where co-operation can work and happen. To that humanitarian example I add a cultural example. I return again to Vaclav Havel, the newly-elected President of Czechoslovakia. During the long political winter that followed the Prague Spring, Dr. Havel, as has been referred to by the noble Marquess, suffered periods of imprisonment. But he has also continued his cultural work—if I may describe it as that—as an author, playwright and a writer.
What has been the key to his mettle and to his power to resist? The key seems to have lain in personal conduct, inward conscience and in the power to reveal the falsity of a system that was oppressing him through what he has called "under the boulder", to pick up the previous quotation. He has described it as "living in the truth". That "living in the truth" he himself describes as,
"living in accordance with a longing for people's rightful dignity, in accordance with moral integrity",
and then, interestingly, in accordance with
"a sense of transcendence over the world".

315
He adds:
"The power of truth cannot be measured in terms of disciples because it lies in the hidden aims of life".
I am especially interested in the phrase,
"a sense of transcendence over the world".
In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke about literature and books. I am an avid reader of the reviews of contemporary writing in this country. It is my own opinion, in terms of the cultural context of writing, that our own literature of plays and novels could be greatly enriched by that sense of transcendence; of something other; a sense of a mystery beyond the world of everyday relations.
The distinguished Irish poet Seamus Heaney has called for just that dimension which I believe East European writers can contribute within a cultural context. Surely, closer firsthand friendship, with English used as a medium, can enrich us culturally here. Those are examples of humanitarian and cultural co-operation which significantly, I believe, keep the impulse of hope alive for me.
Yet what is most difficult is the co-operation in matters spiritual. Here, in our hopes for a new Europe, may I cautiously refer to some of the spiritual traditions of the Polish nation. I am very aware of the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about anti-semitism which has arisen there as well as in France. Yet, as a subaltern serving with the Sixth Armoured Division in post-war Germany, I still remember encounters with the tenacious religious faith of Polish officers and men who had chosen to stay within the British Army at the end of the Second World War.
More recently—and this picks up the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to youth exchange—teenagers from Walsall and Wolverhampton in my own diocese in the West Midlands have greatly enjoyed and benefited spiritually from youth exchange with Polish families and young people. This exchange continued for several years prior to the recent changes. In the new Poland of the past months those traditions—this perhaps chimes with the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—of Polish faith and spiritual life now face the new chastening challenges of a much more open, doubting and questioning society. Poland is itself now a society of choice.
A first-hand observer writes:
"For decades the Church has been the keystone of national and social identity … but now the strength of the Church can no longer derive from its historic position in the past. It must flow, if at all, from the active faith and choices of individual people".
That is a spiritual strength flowing from the individual choices and the active faith of people. The same is true for England and for Europe. My own diocese has been connected with the diocese of Mecklenburg in East Germany for the past few years. A close friend and an assistant bishop there is hoping to come to our clergy conference in a few months' time. Yet he is not sure that he will be able to come because he and Church authorities in that diocese are having to set up a new education system. He wants co-operation and help from us in thinking about that system in the vacuum which he faces.
316
Surely, as other speakers have said, at this level spiritual co-operation with Polish and East German people can bring rewards greater than only economic or political rewards. It is for those reasons that I am glad to support my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester in calling attention to the case and the hope for European co-operation in matters humanitarian, cultural and spiritual.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on an outstanding maiden speech. It springs from his distinguished and varied career in the Church, his connections in Uganda and his connection with education in various forms. Obviously, he will apply his wide experience of humanity and Christianity to our benefit in this House.
As a Scot, I was perhaps more impressed by the shrewdness of his comment that the Polish nation now faces complicated issues. It follows closely the observation of my own minister, John Stevenson, in the parish of Kilmuir of the Church of Scotland. He said that Christianity can thrive under Communism but he doubted its survival under comfortable capitalism. It is a fact that we face. We greatly enjoyed the right reverend Prelate's speech. It is a portent of things to come.
We are now coming to a rather less elevated discourse by myself. I want to talk about the Council of Europe. I was glad that the right reverend Prelate who introduced the debate referred specifically to the role of the Council of Europe in these matters. I have been a member of the Council of Europe for about three years. I was appointed to the parliamentary assembly. I have enormously enjoyed it and it has taught me a great deal. The ignorance in this country of the Council of Europe is profound. I dare say that that is true even in this House. People know about the European Community and the European Parliament but they do not know about the Council of Europe. Most people know that it sprang partly from the great speech of Winston Churchill and they know that it exists.
I have been astonished by the effectiveness of that parliamentary assembly, which some people might regard purely as a talking shop or as a source of trips for parliamentarians from all over Europe. It is astonishingly effective. I have been amazed by the enormous respect for the Council of Europe among the people of Eastern Europe. They wanted to be associated with it and they wanted to join because they knew that it had value far beyond the economic and political value of the European Community.
Before last back-end—the autumn in non-agricultural language—I visited Hungary. I was with the committee on refugees, demography, minorities and mass migration. It was the first such meeting of the committee in Eastern Europe. We visited various places. I was impressed by the width of vision of the committee. It does important work and has thought ahead in a way that is typical of the Council of Europe. The Convention of Human Rights and many other conventions originated in the Council of

317
Europe. Perhaps I may detail to the House a little of the humanitarian work of the Committee.
It is presently considering the position inside Turkey of kurdish refugees from Iraq. Whatever one may think of certain aspects of Turkish life, the authorities have an enormous problem there which they are trying to tackle. Without doubt the visit of members of our committee to that area was an enormous help not only in bringing the matter to the notice of the world but also in keeping the authorities there up to the mark, to put it bluntly, in their treatment of the Kurdish refugees, who are a miserably unfortunate people, oppressed in the three countries in which they happen to exist. I do not think that too much knowledge can be spread of their predicament. There is also the simple matter of pressing our government and other governments to give money to relief organisations in order to help.
There are similar problems on the borders of Bulgaria and Turkey. There was an unfortunate repression of Turkish citizens inside Bulgaria. They were forced to change their names to Bulgarian names and were eventually more or less expelled from the country where they lived. A committee of the council is looking at the matter. It has been able to produce a whole range of facts which previously were disguised by the Bulgarian Government and were exaggerated by other sources. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, other factors are coming to the fore. There is a strong anti-Turkish feeling among the people of Bulgaria which needs to be counteracted by public opinion and education.
I should like to raise the further question not of refugees but of migrants in search of economic improvement in their lives. Until now the problem has been coped with by the prosperous western nations such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Indeed a great many Turks have gone to Germany to work in its industries. We all have enormous problems in dealing with these migrants, especially with the second generation. Problems of education have led to appalling problems of unemployment among young blacks and to the xenophobia and racism which we all deplore. The committee to which I referred is looking at the question of new migration to countries that were previously countries of emigration. I refer to Italy, Spain and Portugal.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, touched on the problem, which is a purely economic one, of the poor people of North Africa who seek to work in and share the prosperity of their near neighbours on the other side of the Mediterranean. At least our committee can warn those countries of the dangers they face and can point to the need for special measures, such as have been taken in Holland, in order to integrate such communities. It can give a strong warning that unless they educate the second generation they will have tremendous problems.
I have said enough to show the work that is done by one small committee of the Council of Europe. It is absolutely essential that we in this country pay more attention to the Council of Europe. We should think more about it and perhaps do more to promote
318
it. It is valued more highly in Europe and in Eastern Europe than it is in this country.
I wholly agree with my noble friend who spoke about the need for education. Occasionally, the Council of Europe has aroused in me nasty feelings of envy, especially when I listen to Dutch people speaking. They can switch from German to French and then into English—and, of course, they also speak Dutch—while I struggle along with my miserable French. I think that we should consider the cultural and humanitarian benefits which may flow to us from the Council of Europe, and also from the other European nations, as well as any benefits which we may be able to offer.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am both glad and grateful that it falls to me to add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers whom we have had the opportunity to hear this afternoon; namely, the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield.
We on these Benches, and the Liberal Democrats as a party, are sometimes thought of as Euro-fanatics who are willing at the drop of a hat to sell our British birthright for a mess of European potage. I should like to make the point this afternoon that we are European fanatics because we realise—and this realisation has never been more important than at present—how profoundly and deeply we in this country are European. Because we are European in that very profound sense, we have an opportunity and an obligation to play a special part in what is happening as regards the changes in Europe today.
Let us consider, for example, the English language. Its roots are to be found both in Latin from Southern Europe and in the German language. It is the mixture of those two European roots which gives us a language that I think we all agree has a subtlety and a sensitivity which make it a quite exceptional instrument for expressing a wide range of ideas and feelings. No doubt that has contributed to the fact that it is so widely used throughout the world and is such an instrument of international and European development.
If one looks at our ideas about government and democracy, one realises that they stem on the one hand from Rome and on the other, in their determination to allow the voice of ordinary people to be heard, from the old Anglo-Saxon folk moots. Those are European roots of a profound and important kind. Moreover, if one looks at the religion of this country, it will be seen that it draws strength and many of its ideas —even if it is unwilling always to admit it—from the old Roman tradition. It also draws its vigorous, nagging, conscientious individualism from the defiance and the individualism of Luther. Three of the most important characteristics of any country are its language, its ideas of government and democracy and its religious base. Surely, therefore, we are profoundly European in this country.
Even in today's debate some speakers have spoken almost as though they saw Europe as being over there and we as inhabitants of these offshore islands

319
as not being truly European. However, it is because we are so truly European that we here —at any rate, those of us in this party—believe that we have a special contribution to make at present to the developments which are taking place in Europe. As other speakers have said, the dangers of that development going wrong in Europe are very real. There are spectres present which we would ignore at our peril. There is the spectre of anarchism. In many places the resistance against a totalitarian government has undoubtedly led to a great suspicion of any government in any shape or form. There is the real danger of a revival of the nastiest kinds of nationalism.
After all the oppression and indoctrination which has taken place over the past 70 years, is it not remarkable to see that as soon as the cloud is lifted nationalism raises its head and that it has obviously always been there just beneath the surface? Of course, there is a good side to it; but there is also an extremely dangerous side. Other speakers have spoken of the danger of a revival of anti-semitism. We have seen this emerge in places where we fearfully expected it might show its head, and we have also seen it in places where it was hoped it was dead for ever.
There are also the dangers of a crude materialism which can undermine so many of those old values by which we stand and which will not in fact satisfy people for very long. A dangerous vacuum could be left. There is the further danger of a fortress Europe approach, deliberately ignoring the developments and the needs of countries outside Europe.
There is a massive amount of work to be carried out and there are hideously difficult challenges to be met. However, on the other side, there is also the possibility of a second European renaissance. It can happen if, together, we are determined to see that it will happen. There is a great deal to be done on all fronts that have been mentioned in this debate; namely, the cultural, the humanitarian and the spiritual fronts. Those factors interlock with all the other concerns.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for putting the argument this way. I am sure that he would not cut off these issues from the more humdrum issues of trade, economic development and what happens in industries. They all interlock. Moreover, the problems are those of the whole development of Europe, of which the European Community, to which we have given so much thought in this House, is a most important part. Unless that Community is safe, united and strong it is in no position to make the contribution which is needed in order to tackle the problems of the new emerging Europe. That is where we need to be.
I believe that there are Members in this House from all parties who are as enthusiastically European as we are on these Benches. I should like especially to mention someone who is probably the most significant European in your Lordships' House today, in terms of the contributions which he has made to the development of the Community. I suppose that most of us—I am sure he will not mind my saying this—do not think of the noble Lord,
320
Lord Cockfield, as someone who indulges purple patches of oratory. He spoke about the development of the Community at a meeting of the European Economic League two years ago. What he said about the Community on that occasion applies equally, in my view, to the wider question of Europe today. He said:
"If you belong to a community, you have to accept that at the end of the day it is the community interest which must prevail. We are far from accepting this. We are not alone in this, but that is not the company we ought to be keeping. The leadership of the Community is passing into other hands. There are many people in this country who will view that with indifference. I do not. I am sure you do not. Our history shows that we have both valour and vision. The time to exercise them is here and now".
4.39 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for his interesting Motion and the thoughtful speech with which he opened our debate. He spoke of the need for co-operation in Europe, and his plea could not have come at a more opportune time. He pointed to the importance of high standards of morality and of humanitarian policies. As we would expect from the right reverend Prelate, he also pointed to the significance of spiritual values.
Here in the West we are all conscious these days that great changes are afoot not only in the European Community but in Eastern Europe where a revolution with profound implications is taking place. I think that we would all agree that it is Britain's duty to play a full part in the development of the Community and, with our partners and allies, to do all in our power to help establish stable democracies and healthy economies in the countries of Eastern Europe.
Perhaps I may say how much I enjoyed and appreciated the stimulating speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, who brought a new dimension to the House—a very large one, the Canadian dimension. We enjoyed both those speeches and look forward to hearing the right reverend Prelate and the noble Marquess often in our debates. I hope that the latter will not regard the distance between his home in Canada and this Chamber as so daunting as to prevent him coming here as often as we should wish. We are grateful to him for bringing a breath of fresh air to our proceedings.
Here in Britain we are conscious that over several centuries we have built a society of which we have a right to be proud. The creation of this society has involved bitter struggle, civil war and—not least—great world wars. What has emerged is not perfect, but we have a free society in Britain with freedom under the law and a parliamentary democracy.
It is against that background that we must look at the right reverend Prelate's Motion. We must also ask the difficult question: is Britain, with all its experience, playing a full part in the great events that are now taking place? After all, the English Channel does make a difference. There is a tendency to be isolationist in these islands and a genuine fear

321
is held by many people that if we are not careful we shall lose the institutions and values that we cherish. There are people in all political parties who reflect this attitude, not excluding the Prime Minister herself and some distinguished members of my own party. I respect their views, even if I do not always agree w th them.
However, we must all realise that our base is now in the European Community and that if we fail to play our full part in co-operating—to use the words of the right reverend Prelate's Motion —we shall find ourselves wallowing in the shallows of history. The fact is that, notwithstanding the claims made by the Government, we have not made the social and economic progress that our partners in the Community have achieved.
Let us also be frank and admit that we have not taken advantage of many valuable European directives and that this has left the workers of this country more vulnerable than at any time since the end of the last war. If we are looking at the humanitarian side, we must accept that British workers have fewer rights than their counterparts in Europe today and that our employment record compares unfavourably with that of our European partners.
One of the most disturbing developments, however, in our view has been the Government's reaction to the Community social charter. The House will recall that at the Madrid Summit last June Britain was the only country to reject the charter. I concede at once that the British Government have the right to debate and to amend Community proposals. We do not have to swallow everything that comes out of Brussels. However, the Prime Minister rejected the charter, calling it Marxist. It was a curious outburst, given the varied political complexion of the Community. It seemed to me that the charter's general principles are enlightened and liberal. We shall be most grateful to the Minister if he will tell us what is the Government's latest view of the amended charter when he comes to wind up.
We also take the view that the principles enshrined in the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act underline the significance of building a true community, as conceived by the right reverend Prelate, and not merely a common market. The objectives must include assisting poorer nations and regions and a general concern about the environment and the social dimension.
The truth is that there has never been a more urgent need to develop rather than to frustrate co-operation in the broad sense. As the right revererd Prelate emphasised, the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, the EFTA countries, the Lome countries need an effective, efficient, and socially just European Community, both as partners and also as an example.
I find it strange that the Government —who after all are committed to the Community, as we all are —should set about deliberately attacking one of the man pillars of the structure—namely, the social dimension—and seek to insist that virtually all environmental legislation should be based on Article 130 (s), that is "unanimity" rather than Article
322
100 (a), "majority voting". In my submission, cohesion cannot be developed or achieved in this way.
I do not have the time to deal in any detail with the major principles in the charter but noble Lords will know that the Commission's Action Programme lists the regulations flowing from the charter and suggests a timetable for their implementation. This is not as comprehensive as was intended in the charter, but if it is carried out it will bring great benefits to this country. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can inform us of the progress being made by the Government to put these limited proposals into effect.
On the humanitarian front—which is another pillar of the right reverend Prelate's Motion —we must take care lest we become an open market for goods and services, but a Europe out of sympathy with refugees. Some recent events—and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, mentioned one—fill me with foreboding. There is also an urgent need for co-operation between the countries of the West to give help and succour to the world's estimated 12 to 14 million refugees and asylum seekers.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke of the important work on which the Committee of the Council of Europe on refugees, of which he is chairman, is engaged. I agree with everything he said and about the important work done by the Council of Europe which is too often underestimated. We are grateful to him and other noble Lords in the House—including my noble friend Lord Kirkhill—for the effective way in which they conduct their work in the Council on our behalf
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred in his speech to the Trevi Group, on which we are represented by the Home Secretary. There is another committee, the Schengen Group which performs important work. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, agrees with me but there is an aura of mystery about the work of the Trevi Group which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may wish to dispel in his speech. Britain is not represented on the Schengen Group, although I understand that if refugees or seekers of asylum are refused entry into one of the states of that group they would automatically be refused entry into the Community.
This matter requires clarification. I further believe that there is need for greater openness in discussions about the freedom of movement of people within the European Community. This is essential in the efforts to protect human rights. Britain should also encourage the promotion of more liberal and humanitarian policies towards refugees and asylum seekers in accord with the spirit of a people's Europe. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees makes a contribution, as we know, but the problem of refugees and of human rights generally should be high on the agenda of summit meetings which are held from time to time.
On the cultural side to which the right reverend Prelate referred, the Community could certainly co-operate in promoting matters of cultural significance in the Community as a whole. I wonder, for example, whether the Globe Theatre project
F1

323
which is clearly important to Europe as a whole might involve, with government initiative, the deployment of Community funds. The reference in the Motion to cultural matters is also timely because of the meeting of Community cultural ministers on Friday. The position of the arts in the Community is not crystal clear. While the Treaty of Rome does not cover the arts it has a provision to the effect that every nation may protect its own culture. The difficulty here is that national culture is not precisely defined. Does it, for example, apply to the whole range of state support for the arts? If it does not, it seems to me that we are in real difficulty because different countries may apply different rules. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some guidance. Is the objective, as The Times suggested on 15th May, a forum in the Community which will resolve the problems and set down a binding code of practice to which all Community partners can refer? That seems to me to be the road along which we might travel with profit to all countries involved.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said in her interesting speech about the English language is something with which we all agree. However, if I may put on another hat, I should say that we in Wales are also deeply concerned to sustain our own language and our culture. The Normans built Caernarvon Castle and the other great fortresses in Wales. As the House knows, we have some interesting Roman remains too. We are concerned to ensure that their descendants see them maintained in proper repair!
Finally, like the right reverend Prelate, I must confess that one of the things which has impressed me most in the thrilling turmoil of recent months is the way in which the Churches of Eastern Europe have risen from the dark suppression of many decades. Whatever our views on religion, to witness this has been an inspiring experience. I hope that my noble friend Lord Houghton agrees. The Churches can give guidance and strength to the movement towards freedom and peace. The Churches in the West should combine with those in the East to help build a new and better Europe. If they fail they will be failing their founder. This, I think, is the message of the right reverend Prelate, and we are grateful to him for it.
4.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in rising to pull the threads of this debate together, I must first congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester upon raising this matter. The debate has been a most interesting, and indeed a fascinating one. If I may say so, it was illuminated even further by the maiden speeches of the noble Marquess and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. I hope both the noble Marquess and the right reverend Prelate will speak again and often in your Lordships' House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I hope that the Atlantic will not form too much of a barrier to the noble Marquess.
The events of the past 10 months in Europe have given us all new hope. Television brought the live
324
testimony of a change of spirit with vividness and immediacy into our homes. We saw with our own eyes the opening of Hungary's borders, the tearing down of the wall that divided Europe and the emergence of Vaclav Havel from the shadows of the constant threat of incarceration to the elegant presidential apartments of Prague Castle. I share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield about President Havel. He has made himself known to us in this country and we were very pleased to receive him when he came here recently.
We have seen, too, the filling of churches all over Eastern and Central Europe with worshippers so long denied them bearing candles of new hope. We saw people sweep aside more than 40 years of despair, as it were in a single day.
We can now again come together on human terms and get to know one another as friends without the impediment of ideological conflict. The Iron Curtain, the Cold War, the Berlin Wall and all that drab, dreary, suffocating and threatening inheritance has been lifted. We do well to proclaim it and to affirm the common heritage of cultural, humanitarian and spiritual links that bind us together in Europe, East and West. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in Bruges in 1988, Warsaw, Budapest and Prague are as much European cities as London and Paris. Europe is now at last putting into practice the principles that underlie the CSCE documents of the 'seventies and 'eighties.
We should not be shy of these dimensions. I think television has made the point for us—if indeed it needed making—that it is at the human level that change has been achieved and that there has been a spiritual thrust behind that achievement. Indeed, the real message from all that has happened recently in Eastern and Central Europe is that human values and dignity count for more than material advantage.
With the return of freedom of expression in Eastern and Central Europe, there can also be a return of truth and honesty in the discussion of problems facing the societies which are undergoing a difficult process of transition, and in the sphere of creative endeavour. Our aim now is to take the great opportunity presented by these changes—the result of popular pressure in which church representatives were often strikingly active (as in the GDR and Poland) —to transform Europe. We should aim to make democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law secure and permanent throughout Europe so as to allow the individual the chance to fulfil his or her potential and to create conditions for greater prosperity.
Cultural co-operation is a vital element in this process of drawing together, of helping to consolidate the constructive changes that have taken place in Europe, and of getting to know and appreciate what is best in each others' traditions. Cultural diplomacy is not just about exchanges of university professors and artistic events, important though these are. It is also about bringing ordinary people closer together across the old barriers. We must rebuild Europe at the level of the individual.

325
Here I want to pay tribute to two organisations in particular—the British Council and the BBC World Service. In any discussion of East/West cultural co-operation—at least as observed from these shores—they deserve special mention. Both have been hindered and harassed for more than 40 years in Eastern and Central Europe. Yet both have been lifelines tc peoples drifting further and further away from the shores of democratic Europe.
The BBC World Service's record is surely remarkable. It has reached individuals in their own languages as well as in English with unbiased, objective reporting despite countless barriers erected against it. Indeed I remember well, during my own time in the Foreign Office, summoning the Soviet Ambassador to complain about jamming. Through its programmes, the World Service has consistently communicated the cultural humanitarian and spiritual values we hold dear to those in Eastern and Central Europe who for more than 40 years have been denied the right to uphold them.
The British Council's work in eastern and central Europe, too, has been crucial in maintaining flows of visitors in both directions between Britain and Eastern and Central Europe; in keeping libraries and information centres going, which were truly windows on another world: in promoting educational and arts exchanges; and, perhaps most important of all, in teaching English, a key to understanding and communication with the wider world.
The huge demand for English language teaching, which the British Council among others is set to meet, is an indication of the task still to be accomplished in European co-operation. The British Council remains a vital agent for cultural co-operation in Europe. History will record the value of the many links which it has forged between East and West.
The scope of East-West exchanges is growing rapidly, and the Government welcome this. There are organisations which will help us in this endeavour, providing a structural framework for our common commitments. These are the European Community, which is engaged in negotiating association agreements with eastern and central European countries, and the Council of Europe, with its special commitment to human rights, which is already providing a forum for cultural co-operation with eastern and central European countries and in which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, plays such a distinguished part.
There are now successful programmes, promoted by the European Community and the Council of Europe, in the fields of academic exchanges, student mobility, vocational training, young workers' exchanges, co-operation between libraries and much else. I would mention three areas which offer particular opportunities.
The first is youth exchanges. The Government support this activity by funding the Youth Exchange Centre. In the past three years the centre has arranged far 27,000 young people to come here and for a similar number of young Britons to go abroad in groups. Some 17 per cent. of those exchanges are with eastern and central Europe, and the per centage
326
is rising. The emphasis throughout is on disadvantaged youth. Very many of the groups involved are based on church or religious groups or associations.
Sport can be another means of promoting real co-operation at grass roots level in Europe. Active participation in amateur sport creates bonds of friendship that often last a lifetime.
The value of cultural diplomacy, in its widest sense, is well proven. We are now in a position to exploit it to the full, to the benefit of all the people of Europe.
In his important speech in Budapest on 8th May, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said:
"We need to rediscover our common heritage of culture and shared religious roots in order to build a Europe which is based on more than material considerations while at the same time recognising that our diversity is an asset and a strength"
Your Lordships will very much agree with that sentiment.
In the coming renaissance of a Europe no longer divided by barbed wire and walls, the Churches have more than earned the right to play a leading role. The brave, not always silent, witness of numerous congregations in churches of differing traditions when faced with Marxist persecution has filled us with admiration. None can question the contribution in recent years and months, to these events in the East, of the Roman Catholics in Poland, particularly Father Popieluszko, the Lutherans in East Germany, the Brethren and others in Czechoslovakia and, most notably, of Pastor Tokes in Timisoara. By contrast, the deplorable record of a relative handful of political priests, compromised bishops and, most notoriously, of Moscow's puppet Christian Peace Movement based in Prague, may now mercifully be largely forgotten. The Churches as a whole have emerged from their dark night immeasurably strengthened.
One of the effects of persecution is a greater appreciation of shared values by those persecuted. We must all now build on this growing understanding. We all, not least British Christians, have a role to play in encouraging the ecumenical spirit which is increasingly bringing together Anglicans and Roman Catholics, the Lutherans and the Orthodox, and all other Christian groups in Europe. Indeed, this goes beyond Christianity: we must not forget the contribution of Judaism and all the persecution that Jews, too, have suffered. All this gives the peoples of Europe as a whole a deeper consciousness of their common inheritance, of spiritual values and of their place in the world.
I turn now to some of the specific points that have been raised this afternoon. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said that he hoped that the Council of Europe would recognise the emerging awareness of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union by welcoming those countries as members. The Government look forward to that as much as the right reverend Prelate. Several of the countries have started the process of becoming involved with the Council of Europe. However, I would sound one word of caution. The Council of Europe has high standards, particularly as regards human rights, and we must not allow those standards

327
to be lowered. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, would echo that sentiment.
My noble friend Lord Beloff referred to the Trevi agreement on terrorism, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. It is indeed a good example of co-operation within Europe. It provides for the closest possible exchanges of information and co-ordination of policies with the aim of strengthening our common resolve to defeat international terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that he had not heard much about what was going on. I hope that he will understand that the proceedings of such a group must inevitably be conducted fairly discreetly if they are to be as effective as we all would wish.
The noble Lord may also wish to know about a similarly successful co-operation against the scourge of drug abuse which is carried out through the Council of Europe's Pompidou Group, which has likewise been particularly effective. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to another group connected with refugees. If I may, I shall write to him on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and I think one other noble Lord—or perhaps it was a right reverend Prelate—referred to the Lingua programme. This is a European Community programme of practical benefit to thousands of Europe's citizens. Its aim is to improve foreign language competence. It is just getting under way. The Government welcome the programme, which will have a budget of some 200 million ecus over five years. Lingua will provide support for member states' own actions and will make an early contribution to the quality of the teaching of languages in our schools and colleges. It will benefit all levels of education and the working population.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked why we did not put the same resources into youth exchanges as the FRG and France, for example. I have referred already to some of the steps we have taken in that area. However, it is true that the officially-backed British youth exchanges are relatively small in number in comparison with the French and German exchanges. Nevertheless, in 1989 some 6,000 young people took part in youth exchanges with the FRG and 2,000 in exchanges with France. The Youth Exchange Centre focuses on high-quality exchanges and specialised areas of activity. The centre will be considering carefully in the coming months whether the level of exchanges can be increased. I should add that a great many exchanges take place without assistance from public funds, including those in which my own children take part from time to time.
Turning again to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and particularly the question of the work of the Council of Europe regarding the plight of refugees, I took note of all the points which the noble Lord made. I took special note of his points about the Kurdish refugees from Iraq in Turkey, Turkish refugees from Bulgaria and also new immigrants. Those are all subjects which his committee in the Council of Europe is
328
considering. We can all agree on the importance of the council's work in that area. I wish the noble Lord every success in his contribution to that work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and several other noble Lords referred to the dangers of nationalism and anti-semitism, of which we have sadly seen some recurrence lately. We are all too aware of the very real dangers of nationalism. We have seen it all too often in our own lifetimes and we see ominous signs of it again in eastern and central Europe. Europe ignores those signs at its peril. If nationalism and anti-semitism are allowed to run rampant, all the precious advances made in the past few months and years will be for nothing. It is right that these matters should be raised here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the Social Charter. The Government's view on the Social Charter is well known. The noble Lord is entitled to criticise me if he disagrees, as I dare say he does, but we take the view that a number of aspects of the Social Charter cut across matters such as the creation of job opportunities to which we attach great importance. That is why we were not able to give the charter the support which other countries felt able to offer.
As for the social action programme, the United Kingdom will take a full part in the negotiations on individual proposals in the action programme. On the limited information available so far, we expect to be able to accept rather more than one-third of the proposals, but another one-third at least are likely to cause us fundamental difficulties.
I believe that it was also the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who referred to the importance of European cultural co-operation, particularly as regards the competence of the European Community and Commission in that area. Although the Treaty of Rome does not formally cover culture, European cultural Ministers meet regularly. In Article 36, the Treaty of Rome refers to the protection of national treasures and there are certain cultural industries, such as film production and library technology, which, it could be argued, are covered by the treaty. However, it would not be right to say that there is some formal competence in that area. The main achievements have been in fields of collaboration between libraries on, for example, data processing and, as I said earlier, the Youth for Europe exchange programme. I do not want to go further at this stage, but I certainly do not wish to dismiss the importance of the matter to which the noble Lord referred.
Europe is now entering a new stage of opportunity. We should vigorously pursue our ideals as we develop relations with our eastern and central European neighbours in a pragmatic, step-by-step way, widening our horizons as each hurdle is crossed. We are working from a cultural, humanitarian and spiritual heritage which we all share to a future that we can build together.
5.12 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his full and comprehensive reply. I am grateful that the debate has been so interesting and has elicited so many

329
excellent speeches, not least the maiden speeches of the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, to whom we are deeply grateful, and of my noble friend the Bishop of Lichfield. There are those who would have liked to take part in the debate but were unable to do so, perhaps because it was arranged at fairly short notice as a result of the ballot. For example, the most reverend Primate Dr. Runcie who hoped to speak in the debate has been precluded from doing so: he is granting Lambeth degrees this afternoon. There is so much that one could say. I believe, and hope, that there will be many more debates on these issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was so supportive of the debate, I should say in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that, along with Rome, Germany, Lutheranism and the English, we must include the Celts. They played an enormous part in the formation of this country and of this country's faith which raises a particular point; namely, that one of the matters about which I hope we shall be vigilant is the marginalisation of some parts of the European Community and the possibility that the North of England will become more northern and that certain other parts, such as the Principality of Wales, will be left on the fringe. I hope that that will not be so.
Suffice to say that perhaps the most important and awesome point raised in the debate—so many good things which I did not mention have been said by other speakers—is that there must be eternal vigilance and immediate action in the face of the ugly and hateful resurgence of anti-Semitism which we have witnessed recently.
As a schoolboy I lived through the dark years of the war. Many friends older than myself died in the pursuit of the cause of freedom. I cannot bear to think that we should see those heinous matters raise their head. again. I must not say more. In view of the hopeful debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Nuclear Disarmament
5.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell rose to call attention to the case for eliminating all nuclear weapons by the year 2000; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should say a few words of clarification at the start. When I say "eliminating" nuclear weapons, I mean just that—not putting such weapons in cold storage or mothballing them, but getting rid of them totally. When I say "all", I mean all in the total global context. I define nuclear weapon as any device that goes bang and generates nuclear radiation.
The reason for holding the debate at this time is to start the last decade of the 20th century on the right note and to highlight the importance of the subject. I contend that there are no military or defence reasons for having nuclear weapons and, because of the risk of accidents, there are powerful reasons why they should not exist at all.
My interest in nuclear weapons started in 1962 at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. The whole
330
world was scared that both sides would rain nuclear weapons on each other. I wanted to do something to prevent our destruction by nuclear weapons, so I joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I should like to pay tribute here to CND. Although it has not yet achieved its objective of securing nuclear disarmament, the public awareness that CND has generated has meant that nuclear weapons have not been used in any of the conflicts that have erupted around the world since 1945.
I have also taken an interest in defence matters and have studied some military and general history as it pertains to periods of war. It is interesting to see how history repeats itself The weapon of mass destruction in the First World War was gas which caused a great deal of pain and suffering to both sides but produced little military advantage. It was not used in the second world war because military tacticians and strategists appreciated that it would confer no military advantage.
I have listened to my fellow engineering workers who worked through the bombing of Coventry and Manchester, and of Hanover in Germany, during the last war. It was interesting to learn from them that war production was not affected very much by the bombing. That admittedly anecdotal evidence was confirmed when I studied the trends of military production during the second world war. If we consider the effects of the bombing of civilian targets, we see that from Guernica in Spain to Coventry in England and from Dresden in Germany to Hanoi in Vietnam, the result has, if anything, been to strengthen the resolve of the civilian population to fight on.
So what was all the bombing in aid of? My belief is that it was a response to the politicians' urge to do something immediately, anything that was visible, rather than take some alternative course of action, which in some cases might have been to do nothing. It is very difficult for politicians to do nothing in the face of a crisis or problem. Another argument is that it was a technological fix—war at long range—which, following the horrors of the first world war appeared to be a way out for the politicians who, as younger men, had seen those horrors.
Having expended so much by way of resources, men, materials and energy, the course of action has to be justified, especially in view of the physical destruction, carnage and loss of life that result. Unfortunately, until fairly recently most of the world's senior politicians served, or were involved in some capacity, in the last war and therefore were fairly keen to justify the actions of that war.
Another argument that is used to justify nuclear weapons is that they deter aggression. However, it is clear from the evidence that in virtually every year since the end of the last war British servicemen have been killed in military conflicts. From Korea to Northern Ireland and from Kenya to the Falklands, our men have died even though we had nuclear weapons. The same can be said for American, French, Russian, Chinese and Indian servicemen. Their nuclear weapons have not protected them. I hope that this debate will spread the message that the possession and possible use of nuclear weapons confers no military advantage.
At this time in history we have a window of opportunity. There is a new generation of politicians who were born after the Second World War and who have no need to justify past actions. There is a new generation of citizens who are better educated than were their parents. Through the actions and campaigns of bodies such as CND and with the advent of world-wide communications media and television pictures that go around the world in a matter of seconds, the peoples of the world have a far greater understanding of the possible effects of the use of nuclear weapons than was the case 30 or 40 years ago. There is also the declared aspiration of two of the major super powers, signified by Reagan and Gorbachev, to rid the world of nuclear weapons by the end of the century. Sensible military strategists realise that nuclear devices are of no military use.
We must remember the reasoning behind the development and deployment of nuclear weapons. If we look at some of the countries involved, we can see similarities and differences. The nuclear bomb was developed by the British and Americans initially to prevent the Nazi regime in Germany stealing a march on the Allies. The testing and use of the bomb were justified as helping to bring the Japanese to the point of surrender. However, if we look carefully at the history of that period, we see that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway. The atomic bombs had virtually nothing to do with the end of the war. It was the entry of the Russian army into Berlin that finished the war in Europe and it was the American marines taking Okinawa that brought an end to the war in the Pacific. In more recent times it was the British infantry men marching into Port Stanley that ended the Falklands conflict.
In Britain the activities of Bomber Command had to be justified—not only the destruction of Dresden but more significantly the delay in opening up the second front to take pressure off the Russians. It is interesting that to this day the achievements of Hugh Dowding in leading Fighter Command are consistently downgraded in comparison with the achievements of Bomber Harris. The result was that British politicians and the military hierarchy welcomed the atomic bomb as a bigger and better addition to their arsenal.
With the advent of the Cold War, the Russians needed a weapon that could affect America across the Atlantic. They had been conned, I suspect, by British propaganda that the bombing of Germany from Britain was a major factor in weakening the German war effort and a valid reason for delaying the second front. France, for reasons of national prestige as well as fear of a German attack, also had to have the bomb. Unfortunately for the people of France the evidence now shows that their nuclear weapons are unusable against the Germans because they would cause almost as much damage to France as to Germany.
China, following the schism with the USSR, appeared to need the bomb for national defence. I suspect that for reasons of national pride it had to demonstrate its ability to use and harness advanced technology. India also had a need to demonstrate its technological achievement. In terms of the perennial
332
antagonism between India and Pakistan, it probably appeared to do no harm to demonstrate India's nuclear capability.
As we seek to develop a strategy to get rid of nuclear weapons, those factors need to be taken into account. We also need to recognise that the actions that we take will send messages to others and we must be careful to send the right message. Specifically, the commitment to get rid of nuclear weapons must be recognised as a commitment to effective defence and not a commitment to pacifism or a surrender. We saw how the decision to scrap a survey vessel in the South Atlantic led the Argentinians to think that the British were not interested in defending the Falklands. Such a message must never be sent again.
Yes, we want peace. Yes, we recognise the lowering of international tension. But those are not the reasons why we seek to get rid of nuclear weapons. We must get rid of nuclear weapons because they are of no use for military defence. In fact they are a threat to our environment because of the environmental damage that would be caused were a nuclear accident to occur or, heaven forbid, were nuclear weapons to be used intentionally.
Significantly, we had the experience of Chernobyl. We must continue to make clear the message of Chernobyl. The release of radioactivity from that accident, although small in comparison with the release of radioactivity from a nuclear weapons explosion, nevertheless contaminated countries right across Europe. To this day, several years after the event, there are still areas of our country where grazing livestock becomes unfit for human consumption.
Another interesting lesson of Chernobyl is that it is not just totalitarian regimes which doctor information. It was interesting to see a map, generated from information provided by different nation states, showing the nuclear fallout. Virtually every country in Europe was affected to a greater or less extent depending on wind patterns and rainfall. For some inexplicable reason the fallout seemed to stop at the frontiers of France. The map showed fallout all across Europe except in France. Noble Lords will appreciate that the reason was not that fallout did not occur in France but that the French authorities did not want to publish that information.
At each stage of the development and expansion of nuclear weapons the world has held its breath. A new source of instability has been added to the world scene and the Pugwash clock has ticked closer to the armageddon of nuclear midnight. We must recognise that change brings with it the risk of instability and that instability can be threatening if wrongly interpreted.
To minimise the threat of instability leading to conflict, we must all be prepared to be open in our negotiations. We must recognise that nuclear weapons for the most part are deployed as part of wider defence strategies and scenarios. To change those will take time. Some nuclear weapons are deployed by international groups of nations and the agreement of all the members of the group must be obtained to attain meaningful nuclear weapon elimination.
There are several advantages to be gained from setting the deadline of the year 2000 for the elimination of nuclear weapons. First, it gives ample time to achieve the understanding and changes to defence strategies that will be needed. Secondly, it sets a target deadline—effectively an end point to the massive changes that need to occur. Finally it gives a significant date for that which in the history of the world will be a truly historic occasion. I beg to move for Papers.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monkswell is to be congratulated for raising the issue and for the very clear and moderate tone that he used in doing so. His good fortune in winning a slot for this topic has been very timely; and it is our good fortune too.
The debate is, sadly, necessary because the hoped-for rapid progress in eliminating nuclear weapons after the changes in eastern Europe has not occurred. With communist parties on the defensive or in full retreat, and the Warsaw Pact in disarray, the danger of a conventional attack from the East has virtually disappeared. It was in order to deter that attack that the nuclear structure of NATO was created.
The proponents of the "flexible response" held that if an attack from the East seemed to be succeeding it should be countered, first, by tactical, then possibly by intermediate or strategic nuclear retaliation. The supposition was, I gather, that the Warsaw Pact military command might think again and cease its attack, and possibly not retaliate with nuclear weapons. It has always been an incredibly dangerous strategy and not accepted by many military thinkers as a plausible stance. The danger now of an attack from the East—which in the minds of many of us was always an unlikely event—is virtually over. The talks at all levels on nuclear and conventional weapons should start to move forward at a faster pace.
Noble Lords opposite may well say that the situation in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe is still very unsettled. That is certainly true. But now ordinary people have a bigger say in government. I believe that no party or faction even within the Communist Party which supports a military build up would get far in the present mood, especially in the USSR after the Afghanistan experience.
A military coup by the Red Army —by the military in the Soviet Union—is pretty unlikely despite recent rumours that we have read and which were then scotched about certain events that happened in Moscow. The likelihood of the military starting a foreign adventure on its own is remote in the extreme.
I suppose to stretch the imagination it would be possible to postulate that a mad or maverick senior military person or group might take over and threater a nuclear war to gain its end. But if that occurred, would it not be much better for nuclear weapons by then to be well on the way to being eliminated, as President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev agreed at Reykjavik?
334
As a doctor I am tempted to remind noble Lords of the medical effects of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilisation which could ensue. However, I shall forbear. The size of the catastrophe, both immediate, latent, and widespread geographically, is hard to imagine, even after an explosion of a smaller device than that which exploded over Hiroshima. Noble Lords who saw the television screening of Raymond Briggs' moving account in "When the Wind Blows" of the slow death of the retired couple from radiation after an attack will have got the message.
My main anxiety is not that a nuclear war would occur as a result of a Warsaw Pact-NATO conflict but that the possession of nuclear weapons will spread to other countries which may use them irresponsibly to gain their own ends or even to turn them on us. We are a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968. Article VI states the following:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
It is my contention that if the nuclear weapon states now seriously follow the intent of that article, rather than merely going through the motions, of making reductions in one category of weapon, for example, cruise, but replacing it with another air-launched cruise missile or tactical air to surface missiles (TASM), then the treaty will have much more force in controlling the spreading of the ownership of nuclear weapons to other countries.
By intercepting at Heathrow a few weeks ago the nuclear detonating devices which were on their way to Iraq, this country was acting under Article I of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (although I believe that the reason for intercepting those was because of contravention of another regulation.) Article I requires signatories to the nuclear weapons treaty not to transfer nuclear devices or control over such weapons to any non-nuclear weapon states.
The supergun affair shows that certain states are in deadly earnest in building up a threatening power by which they may influence other states. Because of that I am sometimes rather alarmed when I see large lorries going by with heavy calibre pipes. The other day I saw a lorry which had three huge pipes balanced at an angle of about 30 degrees on the back of the cab. It looked a little like a Russian Katyusha rocket launcher. I wondered where the trajectory of those missile pipes was going to be pointed.
Finally, I hope that the noble Earl who will answer can agree that the time has now come finally to end the nightmare presence on earth of nuclear weapons. It is something that this country could do very effectively, if we were to take a leading role rather than a trailing role in that exercise.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for introducing the subject. I do not agree with everything that he said, but believe that he represents

335
a view that exists in this country and which needs to be answered. For that reason, I am taking part in the debate. Wherever we sit in this House, we are united in our desire to ensure a balanced and steady reduction of all kinds of armaments—that is, conventional, chemical and nuclear. Since the Second World War the window of opportunity for that has never been open more wide.
My second reason for speaking in the debate is that I detect some of the wishful thinking which existed in this country during the 1930s. Why were we not ready and armed at that time? It was because too many people had not faced the fact that Hitler was a real threat and was building up a big armament force in every direction. I well remember the rumours that all his tanks were made of cardboard. There was an enormous faith in the League of Nations. There were all kinds of reasons for saying, "Do we have to do it? Don't let's do anything that will bring us closer to a war. The League of Nations will put everything right and it will interfere". I remind noble Lords that 11 million people in this country signed the Peace Pledge Union believing that somehow it would avoid a war. The BBC, which was then a monopoly, did not allow Winston Churchill on television. He was banned from broadcasting a warning about what was happening and describing the arms that were being manufactured under Hitler's regime.
I wish to summarise the case for maintaining our nuclear capability at least until other forces have been seriously run down. I do not know whether noble Lords have read the recent statement on defence. It is extremely revealing. The nuclear position is summarised on page 15. It makes clear the fact that at the moment the balance of nuclear forces between NATO and Soviet Russia is between two and four to one in favour of Russia. There is a huge preponderance in all types of nuclear weapons.
As regards conventional weapons, there is nothing more startling than the difference in the number of tanks. Page 11 gives the stark facts. The NATO forces are producing about 500 main battle tanks per year while the Warsaw Pact is producing 2,000 per year. Mr. Gorbachev has been in office for five years, but only in the past six months has Russia's production rate on battle tanks been turned back. Approximately 1,750 are being produced each year, but that is twice the number produced by NATO. Last year the Soviet Union had 51,000 battle tanks but we had 16,500; that is a ratio of three to one. It is disturbing to note that Russia has not turned down the wick in the conventional field. Last year it built 10 nuclear submarines to join the forces, 50 long-range bomber planes and 500 fighter planes. That is five years after the Gorbachev doctrine of peace and a more liberal regime.
It is encouraging to look at page 9. It states that we are now negotiating in Vienna and elsewhere to reduce the total number of battle tanks to 20,000. We must build up our strength, but Russia must get rid of almost 40,000 tanks. The agreement ensures that all the stockpiles are to be destroyed. That is a slow and laborious process and we are negotiating for a seven-year period. After two years there will
336
be verification of the progress made in all fields. There will be further verifications after four and six years to measure progress and ensure that agreements are honoured.
Compared with those of the past, there is now a liberal dictatorship in the Soviet Union. However, during the 70 years that the party has been in power, it has never kept to any peace agreement, the most recent being made at Helsinki. It has always cheated and been able to keep that quieter than would be the case in a democracy. We must also remember that the situation in the Soviet Union can change quickly. With modern satellites it will be more difficult for Russia to build up its forces in a clandestine way—that is, conventional forces which could make a sudden attack—and that is an improvement. However, it can switch as it did in the 1930s when to us it was unthinkable that the black socialists would join with the red socialists in the partition of Poland and the start of World War Two. That was done when we were trying to negotiate a peace agreement with Russia. Within a few weeks it changed and became allied with Germany. That remained the case for two years before Germany attacked Russia. It had neglected all our warnings of attack and said that they were part of our propaganda. For that reason, it was caught off-side and Hitler's forces made such progress.
One must face the fact that the nuclear deterrent has been a considerable force in the background. It has discouraged an adventure or a nibble along the Iron Curtain. Despite non-proliferation agreements, several small countries such as Libya, Israel and Iraq have a small stockpile of nuclear weapons. Despite other agreements, China and India also have nuclear weapons. We made a gesture when we destroyed all our stocks of weapons for biological warfare. However, that did not deter others from carrying out the research, development and production of chemical and biological weapons. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that again we should make a gesture and lead the way by abolishing nuclear weapons. It would be folly to throw away our nuclear deterrent at a time when the future is desperately uncertain and during negotiations when a flexible response is especially important.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wish to point out that he did not hear me correctly. When I said that this country should lead the way I implied that it should do so by multi-lateral negotiations. I did not mean that we should throw away our weapons unilaterally but that we should initiate and facilitate continuing negotiations.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, we are trying to do that and we are doing our best in Vienna. I hope that the interruption means a drawing back from and an opposition to the proposals put forward by the NATO countries, particularly the USA. It was reported yesterday that its military personnel appear to be less enthusiastic about pressing ahead on all fronts than it was a few months ago.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it would be tempting to take a few minutes commenting on the speech of the

337
noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, particularly his account of the supposed continuing Soviet conventional superiority, the scale of it, and his allegation that the Soviets are notorious treaty breakers in that field. The House will know well that both those points are open to serious criticism, but now is not the time for that.
I believe that the Motion of my noble friend Lord Monkswell is very reasonable if only because it applies to nuclear weapons in exactly the same way as the whole world, without any exceptions, proposes to proceed in the case of chemical and biological weapons. We have long been trying to secure their total abolition throughout the world as weapons of especial horror. Nuclear weapons are of no less horror than the other kinds, and what applies to the fomer should also apply to nuclear weapons. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Monkswell said, it is merely to remind this House of the agreement of Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan that this should be attempted.
That would be reasonable so long as the political aims and structures within which such a move is carried out are reasonable in themselves. What would they be? We must ask ourselves what is to be NATO's next strategy and when it is to be adopted. Is it to be adopted in June or are preparations only to be commenced in June? What kind of discussions are there to be and with whom? How will those discussions fit in with the CSCE discussions which are bilk d for later this year? That is a complex field and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will be able to expound on it later. Given that public support is important, is it sensible to develop Britain's contribution to those talks behind the new fortifications in Downing Street? What decisions have been taken so far?
My noble friend Lord Rea raised the problem of the new proliferation treaty. Israeli nuclear weapons have now, as was always to be expected, conjured up whatever it is that the President of Iraq is trying to obtain. Israel has also been developing anti-ballistic missile defences in the star wars manner, and the United States has been helping it to do so. That makes a regional settlement more difficul; just as President Reagan's own star wars made a world settlement more difficult at that time.
Mr. Slhamir has also spoken about a Middle East disarmament settlement, but he complains that he can find no one among his neighbours to speak to about that. However, Sadam Hussein has now proposed nuclear, biological and chemical disarmament throughout the Middle East. Perhaps the Government could introduce them to each other.
We should look also at the two Koreas and Taiwan where the United States and Soviet Union are gradually withdrawing their nuclear guarantees, with consequent domestic pressure there to go nuclear in the familiar pattern. In the southern part of South America the World Bank continues to turn a blind eye to nuclear weapons development. Western governments control the World Bank but continue to turn a blind eye. As the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr. Archie Hamilton, said in the other place yesterday:
338
"It is a tragedy that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has not been so successful as it might have been".
I echo what my noble friend Lord Rea, said. It is time we faced up to the fact that the United States' complacency and even connivance with Israel's nuclear weapon programme has much to do with the situation in the Middle East, and the complacency which has allowed all the nuclear powers to break their undertaking in the NPT to get on with disarmament has a lot to do with the situation worldwide.
In Europe our enemy has been taken away from us. We tend, some more than others, to act like a child whose toy has been taken away. However, it is not a toy but a great danger and we should rejoice. We should not go shopping for another toy. We must take peace when we are offered it and we must avoid switching our arms budgets into new military expenditure.
We must note the first reaction of the Pentagon to the new world. That is a passionate desire to switch to something called Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict—SOLIC. That is not the name of a new under secretary at the department of defence with a Croatian name, but is an acronym with which we may become unpleasantly familiar. It means more Vietnams. The next is already booked for Peru. Even Senator Nunn (who is no fool) is salivating about American low intensity activities in the Middle East, complete with "pre-positioned" weapons. The opening to a nuclear war is also through that door, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government are reminding the United States' administration about that.
The immediate precondition of nuclear disarmament is the political settlement in Europe. Rational aims cannot include a reunited and heavily-armed Germany in NATO. When one side of a military confrontation collapses, golden bridges become necessary. The golden bridge is a piece of traditional Chinese wisdom. When your enemy is retreating, you must do what you can to build a golden bridge behind him. A Germany such as I have described is not compatible with a golden bridge policy, and to go for it is simply to say to the East, "Thank you for your kind collapse. I think I shall take that bit". That would be unjust and must therefore be rejected, since injustice breeds disaster.
What about a united Germany in NATO, but having Western troops and nuclear weapons in one half and Eastern troops and presumably nuclear weapons in the other? What does that make of Germany? That would reduce Germany from a society of thinking people who can freely choose their own condition into a piece of territory, a mere piece of map, on which outsiders choose to draw an ideogram of forgotten conflict. The proposal is for collusive hegemony, colluding to prolong conflict, and should therefore be rejected.
The Soviet idea is that an armed single Germany should belong to both alliances at once. But, both alliances are solemnly sworn by the text of their constituting treaties to exist solely for collective defence against an attack on any of their members. Let us follow that through. Germany would be bound to rush to the defence of the Soviet Union if it was

339
attacked by the United States, and vice versa. If war continued between the two alliances, it would be expected to fight on both sides. Equally, the United States and the Soviet Union would be each bound to rush to the defence of Germany if it was attacked by the other and to fight to the death on German soil, no doubt ending up once more on the Elbe and wondering what to do next. And Germany would presumably be bound to rush fastest of all to its own defence if it attacked itself. That proposal is neither unjust nor hegemonistic but is simply absurd. We must do better. And of course we can.
The idea of a united, disarmed and neutral Germany has long been resisted in the West on the grounds that it would be militarily dangerous for us to do without the strength of its prosperous and determined Western part. But, that ground is no longer as conclusive as it was. The prospect of major arms reductions and troop withdrawals is now good, and it would no longer be right to reject that idea out of hand. A military vacuum in the centre of Europe, as it is called, need no longer appal us so long as we are thinking of a continent all of which is subject to careful arms reduction. Into such a continent a substantially disarmed Germany will fit safely.
There is then our fear that a peaceful and united Germany might increase its economic advantage over the rest of us by releasing a large peace dividend and using it intelligently. That depends upon our own willingness to give ourselves the same advantage. It would not be necessary to leave a disarmed Germany alone in the middle of a European arms dump. We should all get down to an arms level which would allow us the same economic benefits.
Now, what are the preoccupations of our own Ministry of Defence at this extraordinary and historic moment? Mr. Archie Hamilton was saying yesterday that he "sincerely hoped that a tactical air-to-surface missile would be introduced" —presumably here. Mrs. Thatcher was the last to give up on Lance replacement. She will no doubt be the last to give up on short-range nuclear weapons, and will no doubt be alone in offering house room for TASM, or whatever the US military-industrial complex next proposes.
What a bitter and stupid thing it would be if our Government were to hang around the door of this new Europe too, whining for the great destructive capacities of the past, while all the others are competing to find ways of safely divesting themselves of those capacities. Our ingenuity should not be wasted in that way. A kind of goodwill has been forced on us by the revulsion from Communism in eastern and central Europe, and by the US internal deficit and external debt. But the technicalities of arms reduction are intrinsically as complicated as they ever were and thus a few countries, or even one country alone, can block progress as easily as ever. That must not be us.
On the contrary, we must do many things that we are among the best placed to do. We must start by agreeing to naval arms control and by urging the United States to do the same. That would be in the
340
interest of western Europe, and according to the current US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Trost, it could also be in the interest of the US, even in brute military terms. We should then mount a diplomatic network exercise to ensure that the forthcoming arms reduction negotiations, both nuclear and conventional, on both long- and short-range weapons are related to the world situation: that means China, the Middle East, Korea and Argentina. Then on the political level we must quickly join the imaginative interchanges which are now going on between for instance, the presidents of France and the Soviet Union. Mr. Gorbachev proposes a European security structure. How do we see that? Do we accept the phrase? Can we suggest flesh for the bones? Mr. Mitterrand proposes a European confederation, and Mr. Gorbachev accepts the proposal. Do we? And can we find practical suggestions to make about it?
The Government are now enacting a terminal parody of practical British common sense. These foreign ideas are not bombast now. They have become practical, and that is the true measure of the events of last winter. To keep carping does not suggest caution; it suggests sleep.
6.3 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, some people would wish that our nuclear capability had never been invented. I disagree, because I believe that it has rendered conventional war in Europe impossible for the past 40 years.
None of us likes the vast nuclear capability that now exists. If we are lucky it could be greatly decreased in Europe, certainly on a tactical basis. However well and sensibly we may deal with the situation in Europe, it is now only a part of a worldwide problem. It is on that larger scale that I wish to speak tonight. I believe that in the future nuclear proliferation may prevent complete nuclear disarmament.
Already there are probably eight countries with nuclear capability. Never mind how they could deliver a nuclear bomb; one remote controlled bomb planted in a European capital could be devastating. There are three routes by which the smaller countries can develop nuclear capability. One is by separating out uranium 235 from the bulk uranium 238. In the last war that was done by gaseous diffusion. It required quite a major engineering project. Now separation is made by high-speed centrifuges which can be hidden relatively effectively. On the horizon is the possibility of separation by lasers, which might make the process much easier.
At present the second and most likely approach is obtaining plutonium from a nuclear reactor. Normally such plutonium is not of weapon grade, but could produce a very dirty fizzle bomb. However, if the time which the fuel rods remain in the reactor is shortened, that difficulty is overcome. The next step is to separate the plutonium from the remaining uranium and other products in the fuel rods. There is plenty of published information on how that can be done. Admittedly there is also a know-how about doing that safely, but it is not too difficult if the risks are accepted —as they would be by some countries.

341
To me the frightening statistic—albeit fairly rough—is that a 1,000 megawatt electrical reactor, which is the size we have in this country, could produce around 800 kilogrammes of plutonium in one year. It is generally accepted that eight kilogrammes of plutonium is a reasonable figure for an atomic weapon. On that basis the large reactor that I mentioned could provide enough plutonium for 100 bombs a year. Those figures can be scaled down correspondingly for smaller reactors.
The third route towards an atom bomb would be stealing plutonium from storage or in transit. Efforts have been made internationally to account for the plutonium being produced in nuclear reactors and to prevent weapon grade plutonium being produced. Those measures may have helped, but have clearly not prevented the considerable growth in nuclear capability. I do not believe that in the future effective enforcement is likely. Only Isreal has achieved that by bombing the Syrian nuclear reactor.
First, I conclude that in the future nuclear proliferation will be the biggest threat to be faced. Secondly, unless we can—in the unlikely event—control nuclear proliferation, it will be absolute folly for Europe not to retain an effective deterrent against a nuclear threat from elsewhere. If the very worst happened one must be capable of replying in kind.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join those who thanked my noble friend Lord Monkswell for introducing this perhaps most important of all subjects. As is not unusual, attendance is in inverse ratio to the importance of the subject. I look forward to the occasion when we shall have a full-scale debate on this subject in which our two Front Benches may becone engaged. We shall perhaps, in a longer period of time, be able to deal more fully with some of the points raised than we are able to do in the short debate this afternoon.
I an tempted to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. He and I are both yesterday's men. But I intend to concentrate on today rather than to exchange statements and mis-statements with him on what did or did not happen in the past. It will be more useful to try to see where this country stands internationally at this moment rather than to rake over the still disagreeable ashes of what took place in times in which, I think, both of us played some minor role.
I should like to ask, therefore, what is the position? It would be useful if we remind ourselves where we stand. In order to do that perhaps one might say that proliferation is the general term used to describe the spread of nuclear weapons, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, pointed out; but it is also used to describe the increase in the number of weapons produced by those who already possess them. It is that type of proliferation —vertical proliferation as it is called —which tends to stir up and encourage non-nuclear states to indulge in the horizontal proliferation —as the alternative is called—by spreading nuclear weapons to more and more countries.
342
If those countries which possess nuclear weapons regard them as so valuable that far from getting rid of them they continue to increase or modify them, as the phrase goes, then the non-nuclear states not unnaturally say, "If it is good for them and they are not prepared to reduce capacity in any way; if they want to increase; if Trident must come; for what reason are they not good for us? Can we not have a little of what they so enjoy having?"
It is useless for us, a country which takes the lead in retaining nuclear weapons—though we are in theory devoted to getting rid of them—to try effectively to prevent proliferation all over the world if in practice we retain them. The two stances are incompatible.
What is this non-proliferation treaty? My noble friend Lord Rea quoted from it, but perhaps I may repeat one or two phrases:
"Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".
That is an extract from the treaty of 1968. It became operational, if I may remind your Lordships, in March 1970. It has now been signed by 141 nations. It is the most extensive arms control treaty in the world and it attempts to stop non-nuclear countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency carries out technical inspections of nuclear facilities with a view to enforcing the treaty. As we have seen, it has not been exactly successful.
I should like to examine briefly why that is so and what I think we should do about it. The main problem, as I have said, is that vertical proliferation continues, which undermines the credibility of the NPT. It is not true to say that we have broken the letter of the treaty by our vertical proliferation —I do not make that accusation—but it is fair to say that developing new nuclear weapons (described as "modernisation") is against the spirit of the treaty. I am sure everybody will agree with that. Whether one argues one way or the other as to whether we are in breach of the letter of the treaty, it is not surprising that the non-nuclear states regard us as being not only in breach of the spirit but also of the letter of the treaty. Of course, the Government deny that.
Nuclear testing is an essential part of the modernisation process. It enables those countries that already have nuclear weapons to develop new, more powerful and more accurate weapons. Currently, we as a country—the voice of the present Government, of course —insist on the right to order more modern, more dangerous and more accurate nuclear weapons.
In August this year, the non-proliferation treaty comes up for review. In Iraq —hitting the headlines at the moment—fears are being raised about the enforcement of the treaty. Given the modernisation of European nuclear weapons, the non-nuclear nations point out with some justification that the nuclear states have exploited the treaty simply to consolidate their own military power while seeking to limit that of smaller states.

343
One way to stop nuclear weapons proliferation would be a complete ban on testing. We have at the present time a partial testing treaty which prohibits atmospheric testing. If I am referring to facts which noble Lords recognise as perhaps unnecessary to repeat because they are generally known, I beg forgiveness; it is sometimes useful to remind ourselves exactly what is the position. A conference has been arranged for next January in New York to vote on an amendment to ban nuclear testing as such. Forty states have signed a call for the treaty to be converted into a comprehensive test ban treaty which would end all nuclear testing. At present this country is wholly opposed to that. If we retain that position we can give up all idea of preventing proliferation not only vertically but also horizontally. As I said, the two attitudes are incompatible.
A comprehensive test ban treaty would bind those countries which are close to producing weapons—there are about eight, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said—to a no-testing policy which could be verified by an independent international body, thus halting the spread of nuclear weapons. Argentina, Brazil, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel and Pakistan have all signed the partial test ban treaty. Therefore, if that treaty can be brought effectively into being next January we have the only possibility left to us of bringing proliferation to an end. To do that, we must also halt nuclear modernisation. Without testing, the new silo-penetrating systems—Trident and other weapons—cannot be developed further. Therefore, a complete ban would put an end to both horizontal and vertical proliferation.
Verification of a comprehensive test ban treaty is now possible. After the success of the INF treaty and various joint US/Soviet experiments, a verification regime that consists of seismic satellites and on-site monitoring is now possible. The Verification Technology Information Centre—an independent body—is currently devising such a regime. This is a real opportunity. It may be the last opportunity for nuclear disarmament. Both the Soviet and the French authorities are prepared to abide by a comprehensive test ban treaty if the United States and Britain agree to do so. If the United States and Britain choose to exercise their right of veto they will stop the comprehensive test ban going ahead. If they do, it could pave the way for a huge growth in the number of nations seeking to acquire nuclear technology. The situation would become totally out of hand and that bodes ill for the future of mankind.
British support is absolutely crucial. In November, together with the United States of America, we voted against such a comprehensive test ban treaty amendment to the partial test ban treaty at the United Nations. The vote went against us and America by 108 votes to two. That is the position we are in. We and the Americans are holding up the possibility of the disappearance of the nuclear weapon. If we do not change our attitude not only shall we not get rid of it by the year 2000, but the real question will be whether we shall reach the year 2000. That is the situation we shall be in unless we
344
seize the opportunity that is now before us to bring this business to a halt.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Office must be pressed to make Britain vote "yes" to a comprehensive test ban amendment in January 1991 as a safeguard against proliferation. I wish to add one further point. Recently I read a book by Frank Barnaby who is a man widely respected on this subject. The book is called The Invisible Bomb—The Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East. In that book he says,
"if large-scale reprocessing takes place, there will, to say the least, be a considerable risk that sub-national groups will get hold of enough plutonium to make nuclear weapons".
I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, pointed out that only eight kilogrammes of plutonium are needed to make a nuclear explosive. He is probably right. By the year 2000 there will be about 160,000 kilogrammes produced each year. It is a gravely dangerous situation which we are in. Unless we take the actions that I have just described there is no way out. We are within range of bodies such as the IRA possessing the capacity of making the nuclear weapon. We are within the range of irresponsible dictatorships all over the world having the power to create and use the nuclear weapon.
We are living in a state of illusion. Because there is peace in Europe and we feel more comfortable that the United States and the Soviet Union are talking to each other, we are living with the idea that everything is now all right and that we need not bother. We are gravely not all right. I hope that the Government will take the situation very seriously and say to themselves that we have to do something about this problem for the sake of the future of mankind.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, I cannot resist briefly replying to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I do so because I was one of the 11 million signatories to the Peace Pledge Union. I do not regret that. That pledge was made in about 1932 at a time when Hitler was a small despot. It was not the signatories to the Peace Pledge Union who made him into the powerful monster that he became. I would like to take the opportunity at some other time and in some other forum to debate the subject with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. It was certainly with the active connivance of both the British and French that during the 1930s Hitler and Nazism, and Mussolini and Fascism, became the danger to the rest of Europe. They were not so at the time when Dick Sheppard initiated the Peace Pledge Union.
But a more relevant issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. It is on that subject that I want to spend the time available to me. The speech of the noble Lord would be echoed by the vast majority of spokesmen all over this country and the world placed in the same situation as we are tonight. We are living in revolutionary times: situations are changing very rapidly and fundamentally.
However, there is still a widespread war psychosis which goes into every corner of the public consciousness. It is based on what we have been

345
brought up to believe from infancy—that there is always an external threat. We have been educated to believe in the permanent possibility of war. The economic system of the world is based on military confrontation. There is constant massive military expenditure. Those who criticise and who ask for cuts in military expenditure are frequently the victims of the electorate.
A vast industry is devoted solely to the production of machines of destruction. Millions are employed in that industry in order to produce what are essentially unproductive products and machines. That fact represents the popular mood not only in this country but virtually in all countries. It is backed by the media and by politicians.
The past is debatable. The effect of atomic weapons since the disaster of 1945 is debatable. I do not p:"opose to debate that. I simply say that, on the one hand, there are those who have argued that the presence of atomic weapons has brought peace; there are others, with whom I associate myself, who say that atomic weapons have been a waste of resources and a threat to humankind.
Much more important than debating what has happened over the past 40 to 50 years is looking to the future. There is a new danger in this new future; this new kind of world and the new relations within which we are all living. There is a very great danger that the phantom enemy is distracting the real one which is the national mentality based on the concept of defence. The sanctity of defence is blinding people to other and more dangerous threats to ourselves and to the whole of humanity. Countries are destroying themselves. And they are combining to destroy our planet on which the human race depends.
It is much more difficult and challenging to argue about issues concerning the environment such as roads, housing, education, dangerous emissions, the ozone layer and the destruction of tropical forests. It is much more difficult and challenging to debate those matters and the dangers that they create than the very simplistic notion of the dangers of war. When we argue on these grounds we are arguing against vested interests. We are arguing in the public interest. We are arguing for short-term costs for long-term gains.
One of the major tasks facing the politicians of this and the other countries is to find the means of transforming the manufacture of arms into the manufacture of civil products. There are opportunities for new markets and for retraining those who have been engaged until now in the production of destructive machines. I am glad to say that the Labour Party is researching this issue and is seeking the means by which this essential transformation can be achieved not only here but in other countries. In addition, a conference is to be held in Moscow this summer on the problems of converting arms factories to peaceful production.
It is not only those who have been in, one might say, the peace lobby for so many years who are seeing this new opportunity, this new necessity and this new challenge for mankind which has so suddenly come upon us. I quote Robert McNamara, a former United States Defence Secretary and a former
346
president of the World Bank. At a North-South round table conference in Costa Rica at the beginning of this year he stated that the United States could reduce its military expenditure from 6 per cent. of gross national product to 3 per cent. over the next six to eight years. If Britain were to reduce its military expenditure to the same proportion of national wealth as our allies, we would save £8 billion annually.
What is to be put in the place of what so far has been assumed to be the essential military machine? I suggest that we work out a system of collective security depending not on national armies but on offering to the peoples of Europe and to the peoples of other continents a safety and a protection which certainly no atomic weapons ever have done or ever could do. They have offered only the alternative of suicide. What I suggest is not easy. It is an international challenge.
I can quote from other sources outside the conventional peace lobby. Perhaps noble Lords have read the statements of General Powell, the chairman of the United States Joint Chief of Staff. General Powell, a military man, has seen the new situation. General Powell has told the military forces in the United States that they have to learn to adjust to a world in which the Soviet Union is no longer considered an enemy. That is the context and perspective in which the debate should be taking place. It is the context in which all politicians should recognise the new challenges, opportunities and responsibilities facing us.
As my noble friend Lord Rea said, the conventional strategy of flexible response is anachronistic. The Soviet Union is no longer capable of mounting a conventional attack on Western Europe. It is impossible to visualise. It could not happen in the circumstances of today or in the circumstances of any possible successor to Mr. Gorbachev in the foreseeable future. It could not happen because the Warsaw Pact has disintegrated. Who can imagine Soviet tanks sweeping into Western Europe? That is an anachronism. And so the argument that nuclear weapons are necessary to counter Soviet superiority in conventional forces no longer holds. Those nuclear weapons are expendable. As they are expendable, as nobody claims that they are safe and as everyone recognises the danger that they present to humanity, it should be clear that every effort must be made to get rid of nuclear weapons wherever they exist.
This requires a tremendous effort of imagination and willpower. I hope that we shall hear tonight from the noble Earl who is to reply where the British Government stand in this new situation. What are their visions? Where do they believe they should be leading the people of this country? Our task is to change the consciousness of peoples about the real threat to their existence. That requires all the efforts of educators. It requires the efforts of all forms of the media, of the Churches, of voluntary organisations, of trade unions, and above all —this is essential—of politicians. Unless we are prepared to give a lead we shall not measure up to our responsibilities.

347
In the United States people now talk about the existence of a peace dividend. There could be a peace dividend with disarmament. There could be a peace dividend if we rid ourselves of nuclear weapons. That dividend could be used for world development. It could be used to protect our planet. It could be used to remove world poverty. Not least, it could be used to remove what has already been referred to by a number of noble Lords—the danger of nuclear proliferation and the spread of the arms race in the third world, where it can least be afforded. It could be used to remove the danger that comes from the proliferation of nuclear weapons among third world countries, where, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, it is so easy today to build nuclear weapons. That demands from all of us a depth of imagination and of willpower. It demands that we recognise that we are living in a totally different environment from that of this time last year.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for introducing this debate. Some of us may have felt that his tribute to the influence and achievements of CND was a trifle over-generous, but at least it reminded us that the organisation continues to exist—a fact of which, otherwise, not all of us might have been aware.
The noble Lord asked us to treat his Motion literally: The total elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2000. Even if I am setting a precedent, I should like to speak to the Motion and try to explain why I think that this is wholly impracticable and outline what I believe we should be doing instead.
Is this to be a watertight, verified elimination? Plainly it must be. If not, it would be absurd to expect Western democracies to divest themselves of all their nuclear weapons while, let us say, Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi maintain theirs. That situation is unthinkable. Further, is it possible to verify the total absence of nuclear weapons and the inability to build them? My noble friend Lord Hanworth made perfectly plain how easy it is now to conceal the possession and the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.
I concede to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that in a genuinely open democratic society it would be very difficult to possess nuclear weapons secretly. I cannot see the French or British Cabinet declaring that it agrees to divest itself of nuclear weapons and its means of manufacturing them, and making a declaration to that effect, while secretly maintaining a horde of such weapons. That is not practicable; nor would it be practicable for the British Prime Minister or the French President to do the same without informing the Cabinet. Indeed, too many people would be involved in keeping such a monstrous fraud secret.
In Israel, where there is considerable freedom of speech and freedom for the media, the authorities tried for a long time to keep secret their possession of a nuclear capability. But, of course, that proved to be impossible. Therefore one can concede that
348
point. But, so far as concerns dictatorships where there is no freedom of speech and no freedom for the media and where there is centralised power in a dictator, concealment is positively easy. The problem which would then arise is: should the Western democracies totally disarm themselves, while they suspect that other countries still keep their nuclear weapons? It may be that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons and declared that fact. But many people would not believe this and would not trust such a declaration. That also applies in respect of many other dictatorships. Thus we would never get the situation demanded by the Motion of the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Let us suppose, and concede again to the noble Lord, that all the countries in the world became open democracies and that they all agreed to eliminate their nuclear weapons and trusted each other to do so. A great problem would remain: what about the other weapons of mass destruction; for example, chemical and biological weapons? Is it suggested that nuclear weapons should be eliminated in the Middle East but not biological or chemical weapons? One could ask the Israelis to agree to that; or, conversely, ask the Arabs to agree to the elimination of chemical and biological weapons, but not nuclear weapons. There is a point I should like the noble Lord to clarify in this respect. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked him to do so. The Egyptians have suggested the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. That is the only possible way to go about the matter. I should like to know whether the Government support that Egyptian initiative.
The first conclusion has to be that we cannot achieve elimination of all nuclear weapons while other weapons of mass destruction still remain and while parts of the world are dictatorships capable of hiding the possession of and the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. The aim of this project, which I understand is the official policy of CND, is to eliminate all nuclear weapons by the year 2000. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said that there was ample time for the whole world to become democratic and ample time for the destruction of all weapons of the nuclear, chemical and biological kind. Obviously, there is not enough time.
What then should we look for? We must look for drastic, agreed and verified disarmament not only of nuclear weapons but also of biological, chemical and conventional weapons. The outlook for this is more promising today than it has ever been. That is a policy with which we can and must press ahead. We can also look forward with greater hope than ever before to the spreading and strengthening of democracy worldwide, which we see more clearly than ever before as the instrument of international understanding and of peace.
Finally, we can look forward—and here the European Community is the great example to the world —to a greater degree of political and economic interdependence worldwide which, as the European Community has proved, can make the countries that achieve that psychologically and physically incapable of making war with each other. Those are

349
the roads ahead which I believe are attainable targets for the year 2000. My noble friends and I support them and, as I said, they are attainable.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I join with all other speakers in acknowledging that we have been well served by the inclusion of this item on the agenda today. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Monkswell not only on his timing but also on—and I ask the House to accept this—the reasonable way in which he put forward his views.
We can all have ideas about what is relevant at any one time. In my view, because the world situation is changing so swiftly and because technological advance is moving so rapidly, to review the situation is never a waste of an opportunity. Indeed, that is what we are doing today: we are reviewing the situation and we are looking at a proposition. I believe that all speakers in the debate are what I call members of the disarmament and nuclear club of the House. We are all old lags; we have all served time; and we have all taken part in many debates.
I can sense that there has been a remarkable change in the House over the past six years. Sometimes that causes embarrassement to my party and sometimes it causes embarrassment to the Government. But it also encourages reflection and reassessment of the situation. We arc all grateful to my noble friend for putting Forward the Motion.
Reference was made to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I believe that his contribution was just as valuable as any other. It demonstrated that not only is there as difference in thought but there is also a difference in attitude of mind. The noble Lord brought to this House—as, indeed, everyone is entitled to do—his experiences, his history and his assessment of what is required.
In my view we need to pay particular attention to one of the concluding paragraphs of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He said:
"We must recognise that nuclear weapons for the most part are deployed as part of wider defence strategies and scenarios. To change these will take time. Some nuclear weapons are deployed by international groups of nations and the agreement of all"—
I stress that phrase—
"the members of the group must be obtained to attain meaningful nuclear weapon elimination".
I accept not only the sense but every word of that paragraph. I believe that it is the core and the kernel of what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, sought to persuade the House to accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned a date. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is entitled and is right to be sceptical about the ability to keep to a timetable as precise and definite as this. However, I remind the House that reference has been made more than once during the debate to the most significant background against which we are discussing the subject. There was a statement by Mr. Gorbachev in January 1986 concerning the attempt to speed up the process of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. It would be helpful if I reminded the House of the significance of the declaration that was made by Mr. Gorbachev five years ago. He said:
350
"the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and the Soviet government adopted a resolution on a number of major and fundamental foreign policy actions. Their point is to promote to the maximum extent the improvement of the international situation. They are dictated by the need to overcome the negative and confrontational tendencies that have built up in recent years and clear the way for the curtailing of the nuclear arms race on Earth and its prevention in space, a general reduction in the change of war, and the establishment of trust as an inalienable component of relations between states".
He went on to say:
"The Soviet Union proposes, acting gradually and consistently, the implementation and completion of the process of freeing the world of nuclear weapons within the next 15 years, before the end of the present century".
That is the timescale Mr. Gorbachev set as an objective—laudable, I believe. It is reinforced by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Mr. Gorbachev continued:
"The 20th century has given mankind the energy of the atom. But this great achievement of the mind cannot become an instrument of suicide for people.
"Can this contradiction be resolved? We are convinced that it can. Finding effective ways to eliminate nuclear weapons is a feasible task if its solution is tackled without delay".
Mr. Gorbachev went on to take his objective in three stages. Five years ago, he said, the first stage was this:
"Over a period of five to eight years the USSR and the USA will halve the nuclear weapons which can reach each other's territory. No more than 6,000 charges will be retained on the delivery vehicles of this kind which they are left with …
"The second stage: during this stage which must begin no later than 1990 and last five to seven years, the other nuclear powers will begin to join in nuclear disarmament. They would first adopt a pledge to freeze all their own nuclear arms and also not to have them on the territory of other countries …
"The third stage will begin no later than 1995, during which the elimination of all remaining nuclear arms will be completed. By the end of 1999 no more nuclear weapons will be left on Earth. A universal accord on ensuring that these weapons are never revived again will be elaborated".
I believe that when the history of the past five years and the next 10 years is written, recorded and re-assessed, it will be shown that Mr. Gorbachev is a remarkable man. He has vision, ambition and also the imperative.
In this short debate we are attempting to nudge those whom we can influence on the margins—that is, in this House, our Government and public opinion —towards that aspiration. We remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that all kinds of things can happen; we are not masters of our own domain. We are only masters to the limited extent of what the British Government and British people are prepared to tolerate.
The Government have great responsibilities. I say to the Minister—but not in a cavalier way—that I appreciate the enormous responsibility that lies upon any government in 1990 to protect the interests and defend the realm, as this Government must.
The Minister will be privy to far more information about realities than we who are not in government. Nevertheless it is our job to ask the Government a number of pertinent questions. The Defence White Paper which was published last month should have addressed the challenge of the new Europe and examined the opportunities that disarmament will bring. Having read it, we believe that it entirely failed to do so. Over the past few months we have

351
seen the complete redrawing of the European political map. The opportunities for disarmament have never been greater and Britain must take as much advantage of them as possible.
What we should do is to set the likely timetable for disarmament over the next few years and what Britain's contribution should be. Many noble Lords behind me—in more senses than one, I hope—have asked the Minister to be precise as to the plans, programmes and schedules that the Minister and his colleagues have.
By the end of this year the cuts in the Soviet armed forces will reach 500,000 troops. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was quite right: we can take a range of statistics and pick the ones that suit the argument on the imbalance and the disparity. But one must look at the reality too. The Soviet Union certainly wishes to reduce its armament capability and the terrible drain on its resources. It wants to get on with the proper job of a government and nation: to provide for the wellbeing and welfare of its people. I believe that the Russian people are as sick as any other nation of the drain on their resources. Obviously the reduction of 500,000 troops will go a long way in that direction.
The CFE treaty, which aims to reduce Soviet and NATO forces to a common ceiling of 195,000 and limit the number of tanks in Europe to 20,000 on each side—the figure of which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, reminded us earlier—will probably be signed by the end of this year. Implementation will start shortly afterwards. The political pressure for disarmament means that negotiations on further cuts in conventional forces are likely to begin in the late autumn of this year.
In brief, therefore, the 10 to 15 per cent. cuts in CFE I will not start for another 12 months and then will probably be overtaken before the end of 1992 by opportunities for more radical and deeper cuts within agreed guidelines.
The departure of troops from Czechoslovakia and Hungary will be completed by the middle of 1991, although for a number of reasons the Poles have less desire to see Soviet troop reductions. I believe—the Minister may say that I am wrong—that at present the situation is not clear. The Warsaw Pact is dead but has not yet been interred. There is still a continuing need for NATO. The emerging democracies in central Europe want a continuing NATO military presence in the Federal Republic of Germany. None of the West German political parties is now advocating neutralism. So long as there are NATO troops in West Germany it is essential that West Germany should continue to participate in both the military and political committees of the NATO structure.
The collapse of the East German army has led to an urgent reappraisal of the need for a new type of military presence in the former East German "Lander". After unification, it is hoped that this area will have a conscript militia, responsible only for border patrols and local defence. Whatever security arrangements are finally made for a unified Germany, it is clear that the NATO strategies of
352
flexible response and forward defence will have to be renounced. It is not possible to have a flexible response strategy that is dependent upon nuclear weapons that are politically unacceptable to most NATO governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, reminded us of an important problem. The elimination of nuclear weapons and the withdrawal of troops pose the problems of how one retools and brings people back into civilian life. The noble Lord reminded us that this is not just a problem for those in the West but that in Moscow there is perhaps an even greater problem. I am indebted to the noble Lord for raising that point. I believe it is naive to expect instant benefits from savings on defence expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also reminded us of a remarkable change in attitude, tone and words emanating from the United States. General Colin Powell has said in respect of the Soviet Union,
"I don't have to think of them as my enemy … as a clear and present danger who is coming at me tomorrow".
The problem we have now is that everyone wearing a uniform has spent the past 35 years up to last year thinking about this matter in a different context. We want to hear the Minister explain the Government's thinking in respect of these matters over the past five or perhaps even two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, emphasised a crucial element here, which is adherence to the non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive test ban nexus. It is a nonsense for this Government or any other government—our Government did this as far back as 1946—to be signatories to the original nuclear non-proliferation treaties and yet be a party to replacing outmoded and obsolete nuclear weapons with other weapons. The noble Lord used a telling phrase when he said that the weapons were described not as being upgraded but as being modernised. That is a nonsense of course. I hope the Minister can tell us to what extent the Government attach importance to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
It would be helpful to the House and to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation if the Government were to cancel the fourth Trident boat. A Labour Government would not have a great deal of room to manoeuvre in terms of cancellation in that respect. However, the Labour Party has recognised the principle of negotiated disarmament. We would enter negotiations along those lines as quickly as possible.
I am conscious of the conventions of this House. I, like every other speaker, could cheerfully—that is not perhaps the best word—spend a long time on this matter. By the end of the debate 10 speakers will have spoken. Of those, six will have come from the Labour Benches, two from the Government Benches, one from the SDP and one from the Liberals. That indicates the strength of feeling and concern on these Benches. We are anxious to ensure not that the Government should become angry or dismayed but that they are reminded that the greatest prize of all lies ahead of them. That is peace and security not only for the people of this country but also for the world. In the context of this Motion,

353
which explores the policy for the remaining 10 years of this century, we ask the Government what they intend to do in this matter.
7.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I wish to say straight away that this has been a useful and timely debate. All of us look forward to the conclusion of a number of major arms control agreements this year and to the prospect of further negotiations in order to reduce both conventional and nuclear weapons. I give thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his understanding of the complexities and the responsibility that the British Government face at this time from the point of view of the defence of the ream.
In the nuclear field, we have seen the continued implementation of the provisions of the treaty eliminating intermediate range nuclear weapons. In the strategic field we hope that the United States and the Soviet Union will be able to achieve their objective of reaching an agreement by the end of this year to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals. If the Soviet Union accepts the offer by President Bush a fortnight ago, we can look forward to negotiations to achieve reductions in the number of short-range nuclear weapons deployed in Europe shortly after the signature of a treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe. It is therefore clearly right that we should pause for a moment, as the noble Lord. Lord Graham, has said, to reflect upon the way in which we might most effectively continue the process of reducing tensions and securing peace at lower levels of arms in the light of the achievements of previous negotiations and the dramatic changes that have taken place in Europe over the past year. However, I am sure that it will come as no surprise if I make clear now that we believe that nuclear weapons will continue to form an essential part of NATO's strategy of deterrence. That strategy has helped to preserve the peace in Europe for the past 40 years.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that the comprehensive concept, endorsed by NATO heads of government at their meeting in May last yea r, sets out clearly the grounds for this belief. The fundamental purpose of the strategy of deterrence is to deter war by demonstrating that NATO has the military capability and the political will to use all the forces at its disposal in response to any aggression, with the aim of inducing an aggressor to terminate his attack and to withdraw.
It has been suggested that the conclusion later this year of a treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe might remove the need for NATO to rely upon nuclear weapons for its defence. A CFE treaty on the lines of that now under negotiation in Vienna will have the effect of eliminating the considerable advantage which the Soviet Union has long held in key areas—in tanks, artillery and aircraft. And it will, through treaty limitations, help to ensure that this advantage cannot be restored. By any measure, an agreement on these lines will be a major gain for security and stability in Europe. My noble friend
354
Lord Orr-Ewing has now had to leave the House, and he has made his apologies for that. He spoke eloquently about the dangers of dropping our guard and on the need to maintain the strategy of deterrence to prevent all war.
But the sad fact is that history has taught us that conventional forces alone do not deter aggression. Of course we need effective and up-to-date conventional forces to prevent a potential aggressor concluding that he might be able to achieve a limited territorial objective quickly and easily. But reliance on conventional weapons alone might prompt him to calculate that he could achieve those gains at acceptable cost. Only the possession of nuclear forces, with their immense destructive potential, coupled with the clear expression of the willingness to use them if necessary, demonstrates to a potential aggressor that he faces unacceptable risk in launching an attack. The subject that we are debating this evening springs from a challenging proposal made by President Gorbachev as long ago as January 1986.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves his last point when he said that only nuclear weapons can deter any aggressor from an attack, does he agree that if that applies to this country and to other NATO countries, it must apply equally to every country in the world, and is it not in that case a recipe for proliferation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am talking about nuclear deterrence from the point of view of preventing war across the world. The Government's position, which I have just outlined, is well known.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, outlined comprehensively in his speech the challenge made by President Gorbachev in 1981.
Perhaps there are indications that the Soviet Union is beginning to come round to our way of thinking. Over the past two years we have seen the development within the Soviet Union of an interesting debate on the concept of "minimum deterrence". Your Lordships will recall that President Gorbachev spoke on this subject in his speech to the Council of Europe in July last year. The theme was taken up again by Foreign Secretary Shevardnadze in his address to the United Nations General Assembly in September.
At the moment, Soviet spokesmen present the concept as a half-way house on the way to a nuclear-free world or as a means of reconciling the differing strategic concepts of NATO and the Soviet Union. Perhaps we may see the further development of Soviet thinking over the next few months. We certainly look forward to hearing a fuller exposition of Soviet views in due course. However, welcome as a move in Soviet doctrine in that direction would be, it would represent no more than a recognition of the validity of our own policies. Our aim has always been to maintain only the minimum level of forces necessary to fulfil the strategy of deterrence.
While the Soviet Union has made great play of the unilateral reductions it has made in the past in its conventional and nuclear forces, it is worth stating again that NATO has already unilaterally withdrawn

355
2,400 nuclear warheads from Europe without replacement over the last decade, reducing the number deployed by over one third in that period. NATO's nuclear stockpile in Europe is now at its lowest level for over 20 years. Of course we welcome the Soviet withdrawals, but we challenge the Soviet Union to go further and match the reductions that NATO has already made.
The full implementation of the INF treaty will add to the number of nuclear weapons which have been removed. Within the United Kingdom, RAF Molesworth has already been closed as a base for US ground-launched cruise missiles and half the missiles at RAF Greenham Common have been withdrawn. The remaining missiles will return to the United States by the end of May next year, by which time the removal of all US and Soviet intermediate-range missiles from Europe should be complete. Their return is, of course, prohibited by the provisions of the treaty.
Furthermore, the political and military changes now taking place in Europe, together with the prospect of the conclusion of a CFE agreement, will provide NATO with the opportunity to adjust its force structure in Europe. It may be possible, with those developments, to reduce the number of our stationed forces in Europe, although of course we would only do so in full consultation with our allies.
The changes will also provide NATO with the opportunity to reduce further its short-range nuclear forces. Indeed, as a first step, President Bush announced only a fortnight ago that the United States would not be continuing with its programme to develop a successor for the Lance missile, nor would it be modernising any more nuclear artillery shells. He also proposed an early start to preparations for new nuclear arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union and that those negotiations should start shortly after a CFE treaty had been signed.
We warmly welcome the content of President Bush's speech, on which we were consulted beforehand, and fully support his decisions, as do our alliance partners. His proposals show that NATO recognises that the dramatic and welcome spread of democracy in Eastern Europe radically affects the numbers and types of weapons needed for nuclear deterrence. They provide a robust response to those who have hitherto criticised the alliance on that point.
We look forward to the prospect of further negotiated reductions. However, we should not let recent developments lull us into a false sense of security. An effective US nuclear capability in Europe will remain vital for NATO's security.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point perhaps I may ask him this question. If the Government are so completely wedded to the nuclear weapon as he suggested, why do they not withdraw honestly from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, denounce it and say that they are no longer a party to it? Why do they pretend internationally to be anti-nuclear and here to be pro-nuclear?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will permit, I shall come to that point.
Coming closer to home, it has been suggested that in the light of recent changes in Europe the United Kingdom should not order a fourth Trident submarine and that a three-boat deterrent force will suffice. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, made. Indeed, some have gone further and argued that we should cancel the Trident programme altogether.
Like Polaris, Trident is planned to be a four-boat force, providing us with the guarantee that one boat could be kept on patrol at all times, whatever might happen in the future. Trident is designed to provide a minimum independent UK deterrent and, as such, is the ultimate guarantee of our security. It would make no sense to cancel the programme or take chances with the effectiveness of that deterrent.
Our independent strategic nuclear force makes a vital contribution to the security of NATO and is the ultimate guarantee of our own security. The Polaris force continues to give us good service, but it is ageing and cannot last indefinitely. That is why we are introducing Trident, to provide a force that will sustain deterrence into the next century. We believe that no other use of the resources to be spent on Trident could contribute so significantly to deterrence.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me one question? Given that it was the aspiration of President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev at Reykjavik to eliminate nuclear weapons by the end of this century, and given—as I reminded the House —the intentions of the Russian leaders and the moves that President Bush is now making, will the Minister accept at least the possibility that, if not by the end of the century then shortly afterwards, a position could be reached in which nuclear weapons could be totally eliminated? Is the Minister really saying that despite that it would be the Government's intention to continue to be one nation, if not the only nation, which retains nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, knows the answer to that question. The Government believe in the facts at this moment. We do not cater for future possibilities. We do not speculate. That is our policy on Trident.
We have never ruled out the possibility that the Government might wish in due course to consider including our deterrent force in arms control negotiations.
The introduction of Trident will provide us with the minimum necessary capability to maintain an effective independent deterrent into the 21st century. It bears repeating that, even after implementation of reductions in US and Soviet arsenals of the size now being discussed in Geneva, our Trident force would still represent a smaller proportion of Soviet strategic nuclear warheads than did Polaris when it entered service.
However, if US and Soviet arsenals were to be reduced very substantially, and if there had been no

357
significant improvements in Soviet defensive capabilities, we would consider how best we might contribute to the arms control process in the light of the changed circumstances. Reductions in US and Soviet arsenals would, however, have to go very much further before we could consider including our deterrent in any future negotiations on strategic offensive weapons.
In my remarks so far I have concentrated on the balance of forces in Europe. However, we should not, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, overlook developments elsewhere in the world. The recent evidence of attempts to contravene our export laws has demonstrated all too clearly the dangerous nature of that world and the need to maintain our guard. We must face the fact that, despite the efforts of the international community, some countries may be tempted to develop their own nuclear capabilities. We shall therefore continue to support fully the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and the practical measures it contains to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Several noble Lords have raised the question of the NPT. Regarding the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pea, we share the concern to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. That is why we have worked so hard to support the provisions of the NPT.
With regard to the provisions of Article 6, clearly, as the US and the Soviet Union possess by far the largest proportion of the world's nuclear stockpiles, it is for them to make the greatest reductions. That is why we fully support their efforts to reduce their stockpiles in the strategic arms reduction talks in Geneva.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, suggested that we were setting bad examples. Evidence to the contrary abounds—unilateral reduction of over one-third of NATO's nuclear stockpile; the INF treaty; talks on strategic arms between the US and the Soviet Union which, we hope, will soon come to fruition; and, we hope, talks on short-range nuclear forces once the treaty on conventional forces is signed.
As a depository power of the treaty, the United Kingdom has always worked to strengthen it and to secure the adherence to it of the maximum possible number of states. Several countries still have nuclear programmes that are not within the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We shall continue to call on them to adhere to the treaty and to place their programmes under IAEA safeguards. We also intend to play an active role in arrangements for the review conference which takes place later this summer and in its proceedings.
We look forward to the conclusion of arms control agreements that enable us to achieve the goal of ensuring peace with freedom at lower levels of arms, but those hopes should not blind us to the enduring realities which were well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented; we simply cannot put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. Sadly, history shows us that, until now, mankind has never retreated from the technical advances that have given him tactical superiority on the batlefield: from the invention of the stirrup,
358
which revolutionised the use of cavalry over a thousand years ago; to the enormous advantage offered by the use of the bow and arrow to English archers at Crecy; and, more recently, the dramatic use made of tanks and aircraft in the Second World War.
The complete elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000 is simply not achievable. Proposals for a Europe free of nuclear weapons would not reduce, still less remove, the risk of military conflict. Indeed, by removing the very weapons which have been such a key factor in keeping the peace for more than 40 years, we would be making Europe more vulnerable to the kind of conflict that has scarred the continent to such devastating effect twice already this century.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, spoke of the horrors of war, including the loss of life of British servicemen in the conflicts since the Second World War. The possession of nuclear weapons had made a fundamental contribution to the deterrence of war in Europe and thus spared us those horrors. Nor could we hope to isolate a nuclear-free Europe from the rest of the world, for there can be no guarantee that Europe could not be targeted and placed under threat from nuclear weapons based elsewhere.
Proposals such as these simply do not make practical sense; and worse, they divert attention from the real priority: to ensure that Europe is kept free from war. If we were to trade a war-free Europe for a nuclear-free Europe, we would have struck a most unsatisfactory deal.
Although strong conventional forces in Europe are an indispensable element of the strategy of deterrence, they cannot be relied upon to prevent aggression. It is only through the possession of nuclear weapons that we can present anyone who might consider aggression against the West with the degree of risk out of all proportion to any possible gain that he might hope to make.
In the nuclear age, we cannot simply jettison the essential element of our defence strategy which, as I have reminded noble Lords, has so successfully kept the peace for the past 40 years. The contribution of nuclear weapons to the effectiveness of the strategy of deterrence will be of equal importance in the world of tomorrow as it is today. There is no alternative strategy that offers us equal assurance of meeting our aim of preventing war, in whatever form it might arise.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in concluding the debate, I must thank very warmly all those noble Lords who have contributed. You might think that I would want to take exception to the contributions of various noble Lords, but I do not think that that is my job. It is important that we learn from each other. Everyone who has contributed to the debate has a point of view which is valid from his or her perspective. Although I believe that those who have argued that there has been peace in Europe for the past 40 years because we have had nuclear weapons are wrong, that does not mean to say that it is not a valid point of view. It is held by many people. We

359
need the 10-year window of opportunity to persuade people of the reality of the situation.
When I tabled the Motion at the beginning of the year after seeing the immense political changes that had occurred in the previous six months, I wondered whether 10 years was too long a timescale. However, unfortunately, given the nature of the contribution from the Conservative, Liberal and SDP sides, I must conclude that 10 years is probably about right. We shall need all the time we have. When I say "We", I mean that generation which has come on to the planet since the end of the Second World War and which sees the threat not from the Americans, Russians, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, Arabs, North Koreans or South Koreans, but the threat to our environment and our living space on this planet. We must tackle and counteract that threat. I hope that over the next 10 years we can make some progress in tackling that threat. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill was introduced into the other place by my honourable friend Mr. Martyn Jones, the Member for Clwyd, South-West, following his success in the Private Members' Ballot. It has had a rather unusual history and, for that reason, before I go into the details of the Bill, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to go briefly into its background.
I shall do that because there is one anomaly which would strike any noble Lord who did not know the history of the Bill. Both the Short and Long Titles of the Bill refer to consumer guarantees, yet no provision among the clauses relates to guarantees. It is therefore appropriate for me to remind your Lordships that, when the Bill was introduced in another place, it contained 15 clauses relating to guarantees. They sought to implement the recommendations of the National Consumer Council which had been set out in its report, The Consumer Guarantee. I understand that that report was the result of a two-year review led by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I am happy to see that she has now joined us and will take part in the debate. I shall look forward to what she has to say and any suggestions that she might have to improve the Bill.
Without wishing to pre-empt anything that the noble Baroness might wish to say, I should like briefly to cover the proposals on guarantees contained in the original Bill, which sought to make guarantees legally enforceable, to control unfair terms in guarantees and, most centrally, to defend the terms of a consumer guarantee. That consumer guarantee would contain clear rights and simple remedies to ensure that, if a guaranteed project broke down, the loss would be the producer's and not the consumer's. The consumer guarantee was to be not
360
mandatory but voluntary. To ensure that consumers knew at the point of sale which businesses stood by their products, with new cars and major household appliances it would have to be stated whether or not they came with the guarantee.
This very simple idea commanded widespread support. It had a great deal of support from consumers and the public. In fact as many as 96 per cent. of people said that they wanted their MP to support the Bill. There was support not only from regulatory bodies and the media but also from retailers and manufacturers. I received a letter from the Retail Consortium which reiterated its support for the principle of meaningful guarantees and the aims behind my honourable friend's Bill as it then was. Moreover, my honourable friend, in an effort to work with the Minister for Consumer Affairs in another place, agreed that in addition to the provisions on guarantees, he would include in his Bill seven clauses given to him by the department to implement a 1987 report of the Law Commissions.
The passage of the Bill through another place commenced with an unopposed Second Reading on 26th January after a five hour debate. It was recognised that the principle to be considered was the need to legislate on guarantees. The Bill was in Committee for three sessions, when a number of amendments were made to the provisions on guarantees. Although the Minister for Consumer Affairs did not table any amendments, he expressed his concern about the clause which provided for negative indications. Nevertheless, it appears from Hansard that as the discussion in Committee continued he seemed to withdraw many of his objections.
Shortly before Report stage the Government considered that the provisions on consumer guarantees should have the benefit of public expenditure of some £1 million. That necessitated recommittal, which was taken on the Floor of the House on 30th March, immediately before the Bill's Report stage. The recommittal was drawn out by procedural wrangling and therefore hardly any time was available to consider the Bill on Report although a number of amendments had already been listed.
In those circumstances my honourable friend Martyn Jones in the final 10 minutes of the Bill's passage through the Commons withdrew the clauses on the consumer guarantee. I should like to make quite clear that that decision was forced on the Bill's sponsor. He is on record in the Official Report of another place as saying that he had no choice but to take that line in order to retain at least part of the Bill for consideration in your Lordships' House. He hoped that that would provide some scope for legislation to protect consumers to be developed in this House.
That only left clauses dealing with the Law Commissions' report. As if to reflect the unclear view of the other place, no attempt was made to amend either the Short Title or the Long Title of the Bill, nor to ensure that the commencement provisions fitted the detailed clauses.
I am sorry to have taken up the time of the House in detailing that background. However, I thought it

361
necessary because the background is an unusual one and it would be difficult to understand the Bill before us tonight without it.
The clauses of the Bill concern the existing law on the supply and sale of goods. As such they relate to 19th century judge-made rules which were codified in the Sale of Goods Act. They apply to transactions between the Government and a multinational as much as they do to a consumer who buys a newspaper. It was against that background that in 1979 the Law Commissions were asked to consider certain aspects of the Act and in particular the defmition of "merchantable quality".
Clause I contains the Law Commissions' recommendations on the implied terms of quality. It contains a revised definition for Sections 14 (2) and 14 (6) of the 1979 Sale of Goods Act and clarifies the relationship between Sections 14 (2) and 15 (2) (c). Those changes make clear that, where appropriate, a court may consider all aspects of the goods when deciding whether they comply with the terms of quality. Those changes are seen by many experts as changes of form rather than substance. Nevertheless, I commend them to your Lordships because they make it clear to the layman that if he or she does not find the goods satisfactory then he or she may have a claim. After all, that is far better than the existing term "merchantability", which clearly means the ability of a merchant to resell and which could not be less appropriate for consumers.
Clause 2 makes changes to the remedies available to buyers when their rights have been infringed. It makes it crystal clear that the buyer may lose his right to reject the goods or get a refund, even though he has not had a reasonable chance to test the goods. I know that some noble Lords may wish to comment on that provision. I am very well aware that it was not properly considered in another place. As a starting point, however, we have a certainty. Let us not dismiss the merits of certainty.
Clause 3 is also concerned with circumstances in which a buyer may reject goods. It deals with partial rejection, or the situation where part of a consignment is defective. As noble Lords will be aware, the clause is aimed at commercial and not consumer transactions.
Clauses 4 and 5 address the same problem. One clause looks at it in England and Wales and the other clause covers it in Scotland. The policy behind the clause is very bold. It concerns the case where the buyer has yet to lose his right to a refund and so addresses the days immediately following the purchase. The clause ensures that commercial buyers are not allowed to be unreasonable when they reject faulty goods. If the breach is slight and can, for instance, easily be remedied, the commercial buyer cannot reject the goods but must content himself with the other remedy of a claim for compensation.
However, the consumer is not to be bound by such constraints. The intention is that, should anything at all be wrong with, say, a new car, the consumer should and will be entitled to demand a refund. That is because of the new definition of quality in Clause 1. For example, if a new car is defective because of a faulty connection to the windscreen wiper, the Law
362
Commissions' view and that of the Government is that the consumer should not have to put up with the inconvenience and frustration of a repair but should be given back his money. That is how those clauses will better the position for consumers. They will penalise the shopkeeper or garage who sells the product which has or quickly develops minor faults or cosmetic blemishes.
Clause 6 will be very welcome north of the Border because it extends to Scotland that part of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which deals with goods. Clause 7 and Schedule 2 set out minor and consequential amendments. Clause 8 deals with commencement and is at present out of sync. with the rest of the Bill, as noble Lords will have noticed. It is the unamended commencement provision from the 22-clause Bill to which the other place gave an unopposed Second Reading.
I conclude by affirming that undoubtedly this Bill contains some welcome provisions. The three major provisions are the revised quality term to be known as "satisfactory quality"; the provisions on the supply of goods in Scotland; and the strong message to those who sell faulty goods. However, it would be entirely unrealistic on my part were I not to accept that the Bill contains some serious anomalies.
Either the titles and Clause 8 must be changed or the House must make some provision about guarantees. It is for that reason that I look forward to the Committee stage. I shall be very happy to consider any suggestions from noble Lords who may wish to put forward ideas and amendments to remedy those contradictions, and amendments that will produce the safeguards and the justice that consumers so obviously desire. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs).
7.40 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of the Bill and its somewhat chequered history. It has indeed become a rather difficult and confusing Bill. Reading it as it has come to this House, one realises that it no longer lives up to its Long or Short Title because it was truncated towards the end of its passage through another place. On reading the Law Commissions' report one realises that what is now left is the Law Commissions' draft Bill. As always the Law Commissions' recommendations are the product of thorough consultation and careful reasoning. On reading the briefing material of the National Consumer Council and Consumers' Association, one realises that they disagree with the Law Commissions on one important point about the right to reject goods, and that they disagree with each other about the usefulness of enforceable consumer guarantees as originally proposed in the Bill.
Finally one looks at the debate in another place for some enlightenment. The debate—if one can call it that—on 30th March has to be read to be believed and raises serious questions about which House of Parliament is more in need of reform.

363
Clause I of the Bill provides welcome modernisation of the concept of merchantable quality, now a somewhat arcane expression. It also provides a focus on the characteristics of the article sold which make it of satisfactory or unsatisfactory quality. Those include durability. No one will have any criticism of Clause 1.
Clause 2 is the controversial clause. It concerns the rights to reject goods and to claim a refund. Whatever else happens to the clause, and indeed to the Bill, one must not lose sight of the fact that much of Clause 2 provides valuable rationalisation of the law for the benefit of the consumer and that the law would be improved even if Clause 2 is not amended.
Therefore by the new subsections (2) and (3) a purchaser is not deemed to have accepted goods until he has had a reasonable opportunity to examine them. A purchaser cannot have his rights taken away prematurely by so-called acceptance notes. The new subsection (6) means that a request for repairs does not prevent rejection. That, too, is valuable.
The difficulties are posed by the new subsections (4) and (5). The arguments for and against those proposals for a status quo are finely balanced. The new subsection (4), which restates existing law, provides that,
"The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them".
Thus, despite the proposed subsection (5), the right to reject goods, and the right to a refund, may be lost irrespective of the opportunity to examine those goods. It may well be in practice that the lapse of a reasonable time, and lapse of reasonable opportunity to examine the goods, may occur at the same time. That point can be used for or against the proposed provisions. However, I am persuaded that we should see it clearly stated that in ordinary circumstances a purchaser should not lose by mere lapse of time the right to reject and the right to a refund for defective goods, even if that may mean that in exceptional circumstances the purchaser should give credit for the use and benefit which he has had from the goods.
Whatever improvements to the law we make, one can see that difficult cases will continue to emerge. But the removal of the proposed subsection (4) should not be a great hardship to those who are responsible suppliers of goods and should be a hardship only to those who provide shoddy goods. It may assist those who buy in haste and repent at leisure. It may protect those who are remarkably stupid. I have represented a couple who managed to buy a motor car without a test drive and after dark. They got it home—just. Home was a mile and half down the road, but the car never did more than five miles in its life in their hands and was a rich source of litigation, I am glad to say.
Normally neither the Government nor any of us has to think very hard when presented with an authoritative Law Commission report. I suspect that this is the exception. The difficulties of the Bill, and the arguments which surround it, suggest that there will be an onus on the Government to rethink their position so that the effort and the time which have
364
so far been extended on the Bill and alt that has led up to it are not wasted.
As the noble Baroness explained, the concept of the enforceable consumer guarantee has been dropped from the Bill. I understand that the National Consumer Council has lowered its sight, if it has not altogether dropped its guns. Indeed there may well be merit in a modified version of the NCC proposal, if only as a back-up to the remedies that I hope the Bill will provide with an improved version of what is presently before us. Accordingly I hope that the opportunity will be taken in the course of the Bill to breathe some life back into the concept of consumer guarantees.
The noble Baroness explained that much of the Bill extends to Scotland. That appears to be a welcome variant of the view that what is good for Scotland is also good for England. The commencement provisions of the Bill puzzle me slightly. I wonder why part of the provision is to start on 1st March 1991 and part on 1st October 1991, in particular when the Law Commissions proposed a simple two-month gap before the Bill came into force.
I support the Bill so far as it goes. There is a lot to be said for half a loaf But the question that will arise is whether it goes far enough.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abeydale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has explained very clearly the curious position in which we find an opposition spokeswoman introducing a Bill drafted by the Government's Law Commission which has a title that bears no relation to its contents and which omits altogether provisions suggested by the National Consumer Council that, for her part, she would have liked to see enacted.
I can well understand the frustration of the National Consumer Council and those who agree with it over the fact that the proposals for some form of consumer guarantee—on which it has worked so hard and consulted so widely—have not prospered. The NCC is clearly right in thinking that the present protection proposed by the law for the consumer is unsatisfactory and it has made a brave attempt to improve the consumer's legal rights. The story of what happened to that attempt must be grievously disappointing. I do not know how far it will be possible to recover the ground.
I should like to limit myself—as rather foreshadowed by the noble Baroness when she opened the debate—by touching on a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has already referred. I should like to draw attention to one aspect of what I might describe as the "Law Commission Bill" that is before us.
Although it took the commission eight years to produce its report, I cannot say that it is the most persuasive document I have ever read. I have taken against its habit of putting relevant arguments into the footnotes. My main criticism is that, after all this time, Part 5 of the report fails to come forward with any new suggestion to improve the right of the buyer to recoup the purchase price of goods which prove to be defective. I am no lawyer, but I

365
understand that the existing law confers on the buyer the right to reject goods which are not of merchantable quality. In practice, it then takes away much of that right by saying that the buyer cannot reject the goods and recoup his money once he has accepted them. The courts have held that the buyer accepts the goods when he takes delivery or so soon thereafter as to make little difference. That means that if a defect which is present when the goods are brought comes to light only after an interval it is probably too late.
Many noble Lords will have in mind the decision of the courts in the case of Mr. Bernstein, in which he took delivery of a new Nissan car. It is strange that the name of the car featured in the case is, on the whole, a byword for reliability. The car suffered a catast-ophic breakdown three weeks and 140 miles after delivery. However, as a matter of law the judge held that it was too late for Mr. Bernstein to recover his money. Surprisingly, the Law Commission thought that perfectly all right. Its reasoning appeared to be that it was more important that there should be finality in commercial terms from the seller's point of view than that the interests of the consumer should be looked after. Therefore, in reformulating the existing law, Clause 2 rubs in what I might describe as the "Bernstein limitations" on the buyer's rights. I have in mind subsection (4), which provides that a buyer is deemed to have accepted goods when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. There are no prizes for guessing that "a reasonable time" will not be prolonged.
The result will be that a buyer may lose his right to reject defective goods before he has even discovered that they are defective. There is an indication to suggest that the Law Commission's report and perhaps the Bill have made matters worse. I have the impression that if, after buying an expensive new video which breaks down, one takes it back a week later one will be told that it is too late. It will be repaired but the seller will not take it back.
The buyer is better off if he buys his car or goods on hire purchase. In that case there is no similar principle of acceptance and he retains a continuing right to reject. Again, the Law Commission appears to be perfectly happy to endorse that difference. It does so for reasons which will carry conviction to some but not to all.
I should make it clear that I am speaking about goods which clearly had a defect in them at the start although that may be revealed only after a period of time. It is obvious that the longer the buyer has the goods before the defect appears the more difficult it will be for him to show, as he rightly must, that the defect was there originally. I wonder whether there is not something to be said for getting rid of the doctrine of acceptance altogether as regards dealings by consumers. Or it might be possible to provide that the period for rejecting defective goods starts to run only from the time the buyer discovered, or could reasonably have discovered, the defect which was present in the goods at the start.
366
The last examination of this topic took eight years and, therefore, I am not optimistic enough to suppose that the problem can be solved before the next stage of the Bill. I do not wish to stand in the way of the other comparatively minor improvements effected in the Bill as it stands or of attempts by others to improve it. However, the Government should be made fully aware of the continuing disquiet in respect of the problem that I have discussed and of the widely felt disappointment at the failure of the Law Commission to do better so that, for the reasons that I have explained, it managed to make the situation even worse. It is a strange and somewhat disquieting story. If this evening the Government can offer words of comfort, I shall be glad to hear them.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing the Bill. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for supplying some of the background to the story of why we are debating the measure this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has described it as "half a loaf. I should not describe it as such; I should describe it as a pathetic remnant. That is no disrespect to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs.
When I became chairman of the National Consumer Council it was patently obvious to me, to my council and to everyone who worked there that as a result of the Bernstein case consumers had no proper protection under the Sale of Goods Act. We were determined that that would be the central theme of our consumer reform. When we looked at the Law Commission's report, which is enshrined in the Bill before us, we believed—and I still believe—that it left consumers worse off. Their right to reject is not enshrined in the law and that lack of right is being perpetuated in this new legislation.
Worst of all, the Law Commission stated in its recommendations that it was doubtful about how far the process of patching up the Sale of Goods Act could go. In other words, we need a new Sale of Goods Act which is enforceable and easily understood by consumers. Clearly, the Government did not have room for such a large piece of legislation in their timetable. But we at the National Consumer Council were not daunted. We said, "How can we help consumers? What can we do to help them to enforce their rights and give them the power to reject? What is the biggest area of complaint?" It is the motor car industry where competition is completely distorted. The issue was raised only last week in the referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Attention was drawn to the price of cars in Britain compared to other countries. That results from distorted competition and the fact that 50 per cent. of all cars sold in this country go to company fleets.
We undertook a review of guarantees and consumer rights. We consulted over 100 bodies and visited the United States to see how consumers there fared and how the law was upheld. We discovered that, because of greatly enhanced competition, not only were consumers able to buy motor cars far more

367
cheaply but they were given greater rights under the warranties they received with the cars that they bought. Indeed, some warranties were for parts and services lasting up to eight years. We were told that this had come about because of the Magnusson Moss Act which started a warranty war and stimulated competition. That is the lesson. It is most important in an area where competition is very distorted. Once one motor car manufacturer offered a firm warranty, others were forced to follow suit. I felt that that was an ideal way of bringing about a better climate for consumers.
I thought that a Conservative Government would welcome that sort of approach from the National Consumer Council. Accordingly, we drafted a Bill. When we first consulted the Consumers' Association it expressed a degree of support for the work we were doing. That support appears to have been withdrawn in the brief circulated to noble Lords which looks as though it may have been drafted by departmental officials. It is totally incomprehensible; it seems to contradict itself all the way through.
However, as has been said, we consulted 100 bodies and received tremendous support for the principle of a standard guarantee for consumers which could be introduced as a consumer guarantee giving to consumers rights which were enforceable in the courts. In order to be completely reasonable we said that that should be only permissive. Companies may or may not introduce such guarantees, but if they did not do so then they must state the fact. We thought that that would stimulate the kind of competition which we had seen in the United States. It would give to consumers easily understandable rights and a means of enforcing them. We felt that that was a simple answer rather than the complicated and, I believe, useless answer which has been provided by the Law Commission.
In another place Martyn Jones took on the Bill. There were a great many Members competing for the Bill. However, as Mr. Jones was first in the ballot, we decided it was right that he should have the Bill. He was supported by all-party sponsorship and at Second Reading in the other place over 22 Conservative Members voted in favour of it. On a Friday that is a very high number of votes to command. Clearly, the Bill had all-party support.
The Minister for consumer affairs did not move a single amendment to the Bill in Committee. He has been blamed by many people for destroying what, I believe, was a very good Bill without in any way attempting to amend it or to seek agreement upon it. I do not level those accusations against him. I feel rather sorry for him and I can understand his position. Officials in his department probably said, "Look, Minister, this is not practical. It cannot be because we did not think of it. We cannot possibly advise you to accept this Bill and therefore we must find a way of defeating it".
I understand that because I was in that position when I was Minister for consumer affairs in 1982. At that time the same thing happened. There was a Private Member's Bill—and it was first in the ballot —called the Supply of Goods and Services Bill. My officials said more or less the same thing to me,
368
but I said, "Wait a moment. I believe that there is some good in this Bill. It may not be perfectly drafted and may have some defects, but you find a way of rectifying those defects and provide me with the amendments which are needed so that we can accept the Bill". That is what we did and the Bill helped consumers. I am sorry that the present Minister for consumer affairs was overpowered by his officials. I was not prepared to be so overpowered in my day.
What subsequently happened in another place is also very sad. A great deal of work had taken place on something which we at the National Consumer Council believed would not impose a great burden on industry and would not cost anything. We believed that it would stimulate competition and, most importantly, would give consumers stronger rights which could be enforced in a court of law.
I find the Bill before us quite unacceptable. I have made my views known to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. However, in Committee I propose to move amendments of such a modest nature that they will be irresistible to the Government. I shall do that in full consultation with the Government. I should like to see a modified version of what was originally proposed in the Bill in another place. That would give to consumers enforceable rights and write into the Bill a standard form of guarantee which manufacturers could, or could not offer, as they chose. If the Government felt able to accept that very modest form of amendment I should be happy to support the Bill, if not, I shall feel bound to oppose it.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for introducing the Bill. As a number of noble Lords have said, it raises a very important issue, and I shall come to that basic issue in a few moments. However, thanks to the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, we have had a full history as to how the original Bill came about. That was due to the efforts of herself and the National Consumer Council to meet certain problems which are certainly extremely important. That is the first point that I wish to make. We have a major problem in respect of consumers and their rights because there is no genuinely enforceable guarantee. That is the first problem which must be dealt with in some form or another.
It is also surprising to me—and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in this—to be speaking to a Bill on Second Reading, the Short Title of which has nothing to do with the text of the Bill and the Long Title of which has provisions to do with the text of the Bill but leaves a great gap where it allows the Act to provide for consumer guarantees. I am bound to say that it is the first time that I have spoken to a Bill the text of which has very little to do with the Short Title.
The Bill contains amendments to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, an extension of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 to Scotland and consequential amendments to various pieces of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, commented on that. I join with him in

369
believing that the Law Commission is not necessarily infallible in producing the right solutions for legislation. There are times when people at the Law Commission could be slightly more perceptive in what is required in the real world. Nevertheless, the Law Commission has produced the Bill, so for what it is worth, subject to any amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, may wish to move in Committee, I do not propose to challenge my noble friend's Bill.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in his interesting comment on the provisions of the Bill because I want to get on to what I regard as a more important subject. However, I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, and I look forward to any discussions which may take place in Committee.
The question we have to face is what should have been in the Bill and not what is in the Bill. There should have been a consumer guarantee. That is what the Bill says. That should substantially be in the form which my honourable friend Mr. Martyn Jones in another place introduced it after, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said, consultation and with the support of all parties and with the support of a number of organisations such as the Retail Consortium. That is what should have been said in the Bill.
The problem of a Consumer Guarantees Bill, which is what the Bill is called, relates to consumer guarantees. After the Bernstein case, there can be no doubt whatever—as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenhe m-Barnes, very persuasively argued —that there is a gap in our legislation. No possible amendment in the Sale of Goods Act can deal with that. We must have proper legislation of a new sort. For the solution, I looked at what the National Consumer Council provided in the way of briefs and in the way of history; I looked at what the Consumer Association provided. I looked at what my honourable friend in another place said and at what other pecple in the other place said. I am bound to say that I cannot find any fault whatever with the basic formula that the NCC produced, subject to modifications which may take place and may be adopted in Committee. I am perfectly clear on this matter; I think that that should be in this Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said—I am embarrassed to continue citing her because I believed almost every word that she said—competition is not just about price. Competition is also concerned with quality and services. There is no point saying that if the price competition is right, then everything else will be right. Consumers have an absolute right to know on what basis they are buying something, a motor car, a video or whatever it may be. It may be on the basis of quality, guarantees, what the follow-up will be, the service and on the basis of price. That is what the whole; business is about.
I am astonished that the Government have not seen that and adopted it. I recognise that there are ways in which the other place deals with Private Members' Bills. I have not been a Member of the other place. Their procedures have been decided by
370
them and I cannot comment on that. However, in your Lordships' House we have ample time to develop these themes and to amend the Bill as it comes before us.
I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, if, in Committee, she moves the amendments that she described. I very much hope that the Government will also support those amendments. I have to say to the Government in the starkest possible terms that they are either in favour of a consumer guarantee or against it. If they are against it, then they will have to fight for their position in this House. If they are in favour, let them join with us and try to amend the Bill in a satisfactory manner which, as the noble Baroness said, would be acceptable to the Conservative Party and should be part of the Conservative Party platform. Let them reverse the position that they held in another place, when they persuaded my honourable friend Mr. Jones to withdraw that part of the Bill which contained the guarantee.
If the Government are against the Bill, and if they persist in the view that they will not accommodate any amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, moves, then I am bound to say that we do not accept that position. We shall fight it in this House and, if necessary, my party will fight it in front of the electorate.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on her sponsorship of this Bill. This Government are committed to the consumer interest and we therefore welcome a measure which will both clarify and strengthen consumers' rights. The Bill has the full support of the Government but some minor tidying amendments will be needed as a consequence of the changes made in another place. If this House grants the Bill a Second Reading, the Government will table the appropriate amendments in Committee.
There is already an extensive body of legislation which exists to protect consumers of which the Sale of Goods Act 1979 forms an important part. It covers the sale of everything from a packet of butter to a luxury yacht. Among other provisions it states that there is an implied condition, on the part of a person who sells in the course of business, that the goods in the sale transaction are of "merchantable quality"; correspond to their description and are reasonably fit for the purpose. Traders cannot avoid these obligations in their contracts with consumers. It also allows the buyer to reject goods that are not of merchantable quality and receive back the purchase price. He may reject the goods provided that he has not intimated to the seller that he has accepted them, or has not acted in relation to them in a way which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller or, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he has not retained the goods without intimating to the seller than he has rejected them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, summarised the background to the Law Commissions' proposals. In 1987 the Law

371
Commission and the Scottish Law Commission carried out a review of certain aspects of the law governing the sale and supply of the goods. They examined the present statutory provisions for implied terms in contracts for sale, the remedies for breach of those terms and the rules governing the loss of the right to reject non-conforming goods.
They recommended that the old term "merchantable quality" should be replaced by a clearer, more up-to-date definition, and that the amended Act should state explicitly that relevant aspects in determining quality include fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, the appearance and finish of the goods, their freedom from minor defects, their safety and their durability. They also recommended that a number of other minor changes to the 1979 Act should be made but that the basic rules governing acceptance should not be changed.
The changes which the Law Commissions proposed attracted very widespread support on consultation by the DTI. I believe that there is a good case for enacting the Bill which is based on their conclusions. This is a fundamental area of law and it is sensible that the provisions should be kept under review and updated when necessary. The new provisions on merchantable quality will make the law more easily understandable to consumers, traders, the courts and everybody else concerned.
Other new provisions will usefully correct minor unfairness in the present law and give a statutory basis to certain case law. I am thinking of the provision that signature of a so-called acceptance note would not deprive a buyer of his rights to a reasonable opportunity to examine goods and subsequently to reject them if they are defective. Another example is the explicit provision that a buyer would not be deemed to have accepted goods within the meaning of the Act merely because he asks for, or agrees to, their repair. Overall, the measures should serve to promote the effective operation of the market and a fair trading environment.
The noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, argued that legislation on the sale and supply of goods should be amended to allow for a long-term right to reject faulty goods. I think that it is worth spending a little time on explaining the Government's position on this issue which was one of the main questions considered by the Law Commissions in their review. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 does not allow the buyer a long-term right of rejection: the buyer is allowed a "reasonable opportunity" of examining the goods but once a "reasonable time" has expired, he is deemed to have "accepted" them. In other words, he cannot reject the goods and get his money back if a latent defect comes to light after they have been in use for some time. But he does have the remedy of damages in these circumstances. The basic principle was expressed by a judge in 1823 ruling that a purchaser could not reject a chandelier after a lapse of six months. He said:
"If a man takes an article, and keeps it, and uses it as his own, though it were not according to contract, he is bound to keep it and pay for it".
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, on that point, does my noble friend therefore agree that three weeks was a reasonable time for Mr. Bernstein to have had his car and to have lost his right to reject it under the law that my noble friend is commending to us?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall turn to the Bernstein case in a moment.
Section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides as one of the tests of acceptance that a buyer is deemed to have accepted goods when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains them without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. The Law Commissions recommended retention of the existing rules governing acceptance but acknowledged that the concept of a "reasonable time" did not provide a certain answer which could be applied in every case. They commented that no one on consultation was able to provide a better solution than at present; nor were they aware of any common law system which provided a better answer. They said that,
"The search for a formula which will achieve certainty is, we are forced to conclude, a search for something which is not there to be found".
The new Section 35 (5) in the Bill now provides that among the questions that are material in determining whether a reasonable time has elapsed for the purpose of deciding whether the buyer has accepted the goods is the question of whether the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods. This provision permits a wide flexibility in taking into account all the circumstances, but ensures that one of the questions which will be taken into account is whether the buyer had a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods. A more rigid provision, if intended to apply to all types of goods, would inevitably create certainty at the expense of justice.
To answer the question put to me by both the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend, it would be wholly wrong and misleading to imply that the detailed circumstances of the Bernstein case are a definitive statement of consumers' rights of rejection under the Sale of Goods Act. Other plaintiffs in different cases have sought to exercise their right of rejection under the Sale of Goods Act with different conclusions. In Rogers v. Parish, a claim to reject was upheld after 5,000 miles and a period of six months, during which several attempts to remedy defects had been made, but without total success.
The Law Commissions recommended against creating a long-term right of rejection, arguing that such a right would be extremely unfair to sellers. Consumers who bought a defective product would in effect be entitled to free use of it until the defect emerged. The seller would then be obliged to take back a used product and refund the full purchase price. Such a regime would simply be too biased in the consumer's favour. It would also be inflationary as manufacturers would seek to recover the higher costs by increased prices.
It would be possible to make a long-term right of rejection less unfavourable to sellers by allowing the

373
seller to deduct an element from the purchase price for use and enjoyment of the goods before rejection; but the Law Commissions did not believe that any meaningful principles or formulae could be devised in relation to a credit for use which did not depend upon criteria so uncertain "as almost to invite dispute". It would greatly complicate the law and would substantially reduce the attraction of the rejection remedy from the consumer's point of view.
The Law Commissions concluded that it would be preferable to retain a relatively short-lived right to reject, with a corresponding automatic right to a full refund. Their report noted that this whole issue attracted considerable comment upon consultation and that their conclusion was generally—though not universally—supported. On this question, I very much agree with the Law Commissions' view that the law should not be changed.
The issue of legal redress in consumer disputes and the problems associated with seeking redress in some circumstances is one which is often raised. Following the Civil Justice Review, the Lord Chancellor last year announced the introduction of a programme of reforms under the Courts and Legal Services Bill designed to improve access to justice by speeding up, simplifying and reducing the cost of civil proceedings. This will enable more cases of higher value to be handled and tried in the county courts which should assist smaller plaintiffs to pursue claims more effectively.
A further change which the Lord Chancellor plans to introduce next year is the raising of the upper limit for small claims proceedings from £500 to £1,000. This will bring about a substantial increase in the number of consumers able to benefit from the simplified proceedings.
I now turn to the consumer guarantees provisions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The Government have made clear their concerns about the former provisions of the Bill on consumer guarantees which were deleted at Report stage in another place. Our main areas of difficulty are on record. In UK law, liability under contract is, in general, restricted to the parties to that contract and the buyer s remedies are against the seller and not the manufacturer or importer. This is an important principle with considerable practical advantages. The consumer guarantees provisions would have created different remedies against different persons in different circumstances; and contrary to the Law Commissions' recommendations, they would have created a long-term right of rejection.
The Bill was presented as introducing a purely voluntary regime. However, it would have required producers of specified products to label them with a statement as to whether or not the product was covered by a consumer guarantee. This would have exerted undue pressure on such producers to provide the guarantee and would have created a barrier to trade within the EC and with other countries.
The Bill prohibited an additional charge for the consumer guarantee. The associated increases in
374
costs would therefore have been reflected in prices across the Board. The Bill also contained many legal and technical problems. The Government did not believe that, even on the basis of the sponsor's own policy, a coherent and legally sound Bill could have been produced within the necessary time.
Although the Government cannot accept the approach of the consumer guarantees provisions which were formerly a part of the Bill, we believe that the subject of guarantees and the remedies they provide is worthy of further consideration. However, I must tell my noble friend that any new proposals should be based on a comprehensive analysis of the extent of the problem and indentification of particular areas where reform is needed, in the light of full public consultation. As my honourable friend the Minister for Industry and Consumer Affairs has indicated, the Department of Trade and Industry will conduct a review into the general issue of guarantees once the consideration of this Bill has been completed.
Finally, I shall end by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, once again on her sponsorship of the Bill. The Sale of Goods Act was never intended to be a complete code. It was essentially a statement in statutory form of the principles of law derived from decided cases. Indeed, one reason for the longevity of the provisions of the original 1895 Act may have been that in many instances it was not necessary in practice for buyers to rely on the Act. For example, there are shops which will always allow customers to return recently purchased goods, whether or not they are defective. Whatever the reasons, the Act has given rise to comparatively little litigation over the meaning of its terms. Nevertheless, it is important that it should be kept under review so that disputes are kept to a minimum. The reforms which the Law Commissions have proposed are not revolutionary but they do represent an increase in protection for consumers which is very welcome. They will also make the law more easily intelligible to all concerned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he help me on one point? He said that the Government were favourably disposed in principle to consumer guarantees but that the DTI was conducting its own inquiry into the facts. Does he not recognise, first, that the National Consumer Council conducted a very detailed inquiry into the facts and that they are already established? Secondly, in order to assist our future deliberations, can the noble Viscount tell the House how long the DTI inquiry will take? Will it be another 10 years before it does anything?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I accept that the NCC has undertaken a review. The DTI is undertaking its own review. I cannot indicate to the noble Lord when that review will be complete. It is useful now that the Bill has arrived and further consideration will take place soon.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I find myself in a very unusual position, which I hope I shall not occupy too often again. I am proposing a Bill which is heartily endorsed by the Minister and which is very strongly slated by my noble friend on my own Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has pointed out the anomaly of an Opposition spokesperson introducing a Bill which contains the Law Commission's recommendations which were asked for by the Government in the first place. That again puts me into a very unusual position.
However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who gave serious study to the Bill which is before us. He made some very useful comments about it. I understand that he felt that there was very little left of the original Bill. He hoped that the Bill before us would be improved in Committee. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for pointing out very clearly what he finds lacking in the Bill before us because of his feelings about the Law Commission's recommendations, which, he believes, have not advantaged the consumer in any way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, was in a very strong position to give the history of the Consumer Guarantees Bill in a fuller way than I could because she played a central part in it as chairman of the National Consumer Council. The points she made were absolutely unarguable. I am very grateful to her for saying that, at Committee, she will move a very modest version of the original Bill which will give consumers enforceable rights and a standard form of guarantee. I believe that is what she said. I very much look forward to Committee stage when she will be doing that.
I suppose I have to be grateful to the Minister for welcoming the Bill which I am moving tonight. I am happy at what everybody has said. The Minister was very content with the Sale of Goods Act, which he felt gave good protection to the consumer. However, as I understand it that Act was a consolidation measure. That being so, it did not create new law. Part of the justification for this Bill rests on the fact that the existing law is dated. Perhaps the Minister was not quite right on that matter.
I am worried about what he has said concerning Committee stage and the proposals put forward by noble Lords that they wish to amend this Bill to bring back a very modest version of the original one moved by my honourable friend in another place. I am also worried that he feels that it is better to discard the very long and profound inquiry made by the National Consumer Council, which, as I said in my opening speech, received an enormous amount of support not only from all the regulatory bodies and the media but also from consumers. That puts the Government in rather a weak position, as, though they consider themselves such strong supporters of the consumer, they go against something which had very obvious support from ordinary people who have very often suffered from buying goods which subsequently proved to be defective and which have left the buyers in a very serious situation.
376
I am grateful for all the useful contributions made by noble Lords to this debate. I eagerly look forward to Committee stage. By that time I hope that the Minister will have changed his mind and will be a little more receptive to the idea of bringing back a consumer guarantee. In the meantime, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill
8.36 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill deals with resumption of tenanted land in the agricultural sector. It was introduced into another place by my honourable friend Mr. Alex Carlile and amended with the co-operation of the Ministry and the support of the Government.
The facts are as follows. Case B of Schedule 3 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 states that a landlord can give notice to quit if the land is required for non-agricultural use, either where planning permission has been granted, or where it is not required other than by virtue of the town and country planning legislation.
Until July last year the consensus of legal opinion was that the second provision referred only to the Crown being exempt from the requirement of planning consent and that any private landlord wishing to resume possession of tenanted land for normal agricultural use could not do so without having first obtained planning permission.
Then we come to the case of Bell v. McCubbin. In that case the landlord wanted to resume possession of a farmhouse that was being sublet as a residential dwelling. He also wished to let it as a residential dwelling; thus no change of use was involved, and planning permission was not required. The court upheld the landlord in that case.
That is contrary to the thinking on agricultural security of tenure which has been held for the past 40 years. The Bill was then introduced in the other place by my honourable friend. As I have said, it was amended. I do not think I can do better than quote what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry, Mr. David Maclean, at Third Reading:
"The amended Bill before the House will, it is hoped, make absolutely clear the circumstances when an incontestable notice to quit can be served where land is to go for use other than agriculture. In effect, the Bill provides three circumstances where an incontestable notice to quit can be served under case B. The first is where planning permission has been obtained. That is the same as under existing legislation. The second deals with cases where Parliament has given an effective permission for a particular development. It seems clear that the current Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 also covers the use of land for which an Act of Parliament not dealing generally with town and country planning grants planning permission. That is where the developer does not have to obtain planning permission from the local authority. Those circumstances, together with Crown immunity, are covered by the 1986 Act.
The Bill therefore covers circumstances in which an Act gives planning permission. It provides for private and local Acts as well as the various ways in which Parliament may, in Acts or parliamentary orders not forming part of the general town and

377
country planning legislation, remove the need for a planning application. As I have already said, we wish the Bill a fair wind. I am glad that my officials have been able to co-operate with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the measure. I hope that the Bill will reassure tenants, and I commend it to the House". — [Official Report, Conmons, 27/4/90; col. 664.]
As I have said, the Bill deals with a fairly simple circumstance. I trust that the House will commend it.
Perhaps I may make one or two remarks about security of tenure and notice to quit for resumption. It was traditionally the practice —and it was certainly so in Scotland—for the landlord to insert into the lease a clause which allowed for resumption for forestry or for building. This was accepted up to a certain amount of the holding by the tenant. In those days land was easy to acquire and there was a good deal of land to let; but land is now extremely scarce. As the provision for compensation allows for only up to six times the rent, it is an extreme hardship for the tenant if a part —a large part or even a small part—of his holding is resumed. This has been accepted by the Government and is accepted generally in agriculture.
It is true that in our system of tenanted land we need more manoeuvre and an alteration to the law. However, the Bill does not deal with new land to let. It deals with agreements made under previous legislation. It has nothing to do with any sensible arrangement which might be arrived at between the NFU and the CLA and backed by the Government. It has to do with past legislation. It is righting a situation which was previously held to be correct in regard to security for the tenant. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill, be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackie of Benshie.)
8.42 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for presenting the case for the Bill so well. This is a modest measure. It merely makes quite clear the intentions of the 1986 Act which, as the noble Lord said, have been thrown into doubt by the Court of Appeal ruling. Doubt and uncertainty in any area can cause chaos, expense and, much worse, hardship. It is surely one of the main functions of this House to try to make legislation as clear as possible. That is what the noble Lord seeks to do in the Bill.
I therefore hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a speedy passage and will resist the temptation to amend it even though many noble Lords—and perhaps the noble Lord himself—would like to see more radical changes to agricultural holdings. This is not the place to do it. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
8.44 p.m
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, on this side of the House we welcome the Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, had all party support in another place. We are grateful to the noble Lord for the manner in which he introduced the Bill. It may seem a somewhat lengthy process to introduce a Bill to rectify an unexpected Court of
378
Appeal decision on the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, but the case in question is of immediate importance to tenant farmers, and more especially so in the present context of change of activity on farms, including alternatives to agriculture.
The position of tenant farmers in general was well aired in a debate in the House on 18th April last. I quoted then from the speech made by the Minister during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, a speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, also made reference. Part of the speech, however, expressed the Government's willingness to see changes in landlord/tenant legislation, subject to finding parliamentary time for such legislation, and change even in the absence of a consensus among interested parties. I hope that, when the noble Baroness replies, she may find time to say whether the view expressed by the Minister in another place still represents the Government's position.
The question in general is one of growing importance in the light not only of the Bill's provisions but also of pending changes in landlord/tenant relationships, especially where local authorities are landlords. A recent BBC "Country File" programme dealt with a change of policy by Cambridgeshire County Council affecting tenant farmers in the southern part of that county. The county council favours alternative use of farmland and is reputedly giving notice to certain tenant farmers. I am not au fait with the nature of the leases concerned —I have no doubt that the terms of the leases have been complied with—but the length of notice in reported cases appears to have been very short indeed. Thus it may be necessary to go for a wider measure of reform than that contained in this modest Bill.
In the meantime, we warmly support it. I give the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the glad tidings that we shall not be seeking to amend it in Committee.
8.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, perhaps I may say Amen and Hooray to that last remark. Noble Lords will recall the excellent debate on the tenanted sector in which some of us took part last month. It is with some trepidation that I once again venture into matters relating to this complex area of the law so soon after that discussion. But, with landlord/tenant issues very much to the fore at the present time, it is perhaps not surprising that we should be discussing it again today.
Before moving on to the Bill which is the subject of our debate tonight, it may be helpful if I take the opportunity to elaborate on some of my previous remarks about the future of the landlord/tenant system. I believe that an industry can thrive only if new blood can get in to promote active life. The agricultural industry is no exception. We shall always need good, healthy food at competitive prices, but now the industry needs farmers who can respond to market forces, contribute to diversity in rural economy and farm in an environmentally friendly way.

379
The decline in the area of tenanted land from 90 per cent. in the early part of the century to 37 per cent. now is putting a tourniquet on the industry's essential blood supply. The shortage of land to rent forces up initial rents, making it difficult for new tenants to make ends meet. In turn that puts pressure on the rent review mechanism. It also means that, when a landowner has an opportunity to develop land with a sitting tenant, there is a major crisis for the tenant and his family. It is bad enough to lose some land or, worse, the whole farm, but the shortage of land to rent means a tenant cannot find new land. This leads to requests for changes to the compensation system, but such pressures are resented by landlords, who see them as a further disincentive to the letting of land.
We must find ways of increasing the amount of land and holdings available to rent if the sector is not to wither and die. Clearly the present position is unhealthy, but the question is: what changes will do the trick? We have an open mind at this stage on the specific approach and we welcome the wide-ranging industry debate. We want to hear the views of all sections of the industry. It is worth noting that increasing security of tenure over the years has made a significant contribution to the decline of the tenanted sector.
The Government have repeatedly stressed the need for effective measures; otherwise it is not worth burdening Parliament with the legislation. The CLA's landlord/tenant survey last year suggested that retirement tenancies would have only limited effect and, by definition, over a long period. It is, therefore, disappointing that a recent joint statement by NFU, TFA, FUW and the Association of County Councils went no further than recommending an optional retirement clause. We doubt very much whether this prescription will pass the effectiveness test and we believe that a more radical approach is needed.
Concern has been expressed in some quarters that the position of existing tenants should be protected. That is quite understandable and I should like to reiterate what I said in last month's debate: all existing tenants should be reassured that no one is suggesting that their tenancies under the 1986 Act will be affected by any new system which may be introduced.
It is also clear that we need to consider how to enable tenants to diversify. Increasingly, tenants want to take advantage of new business opportunities and it should be possible as the norm for tenancy agreements in the future to allow for this. In this connection, I understand that the TFA has some ideas about a fixed-term but renewable rural business lease. It would be available as an alternative to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act. This adds a new and encouraging element to the debate. We shall be interested to learn more about it and hear industry reactions.
I recognise that there will be great difficulty in achieving a consensus on the way forward and I do not think there is any point in waiting for it. We tried that approach in 1984 and it did not work. One
380
possibility is to approach the problem the other way around by first finding an effective solution and then considering what safeguards need to be built in. These would be safeguards for the landowners, the tenants and the land. We could also see what can be learned from experiences outside agriculture, for instance, through the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Smallholdings authorities have, since 1979, had the freedom—and here I hope that I am answering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher—to retain or dispose of any interest in land which they own, including smallholdings. This is a freedom which they have exercised to varying degrees over the past few years in the light of their own assessment of the most efficient methods of managing their estates. In some cases the decision has been taken to sell some land in order to finance the upgrading of other parts of the estate; in other cases the money generated by such sales has been earmarked for projects which will benefit the rural community as a whole. In all such cases, I believe it is right that the decision should be made by the local authority, which is best placed to judge the implications, financial and otherwise, of its actions. Furthermore, those holdings which are sold will not necessarily go out of agriculture or be lost to the tenanted sector.
I think that I have said enough about that. Let me return to the legislative problems of today. The Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, addresses a small but important aspect of the agricultural holdings legislation—one where everyone thought that there was no problem prior to the Bell v. McCubbin ruling in the Court of Appeal last July. The extent of the loophole revealed by the ruling has not been tested in the courts, but it has caused considerable concern to tenants. They fear it could have widespread implications and reduce their security of tenure. Although the repercussions of the ruling are likely to be much more limited than has been suggested, we understand the tenants' concerns and we recognise the spirit behind the Bill.
Like my honourable friend in another place I was, therefore, pleased that officials within my department and parliamentary counsel were able to help in defining the original text while the Bill went through its stages in another place. The amended Bill before your Lordships' House will, it is to be hoped, make absolutely clear the circumstances when an incontestable notice to quit can be served where land is to go for a use other than agriculture. I very much hope that this will reassure tenants. I wish the Bill a smooth passage through this House.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank all speakers who have taken part in the debate. I also thank the Minister for wishing the Bill a fair wind. I should like to spend half an hour discussing the whole issue but, as the Minister is busy and I am hungry, I shall confine myself to saying that this is a sensible little Bill. The trouble with security of tenure arises when it turns into stagnation. To a large degree security of tenure is still necessary for

381
good farming. Having said that, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.