Lords Sitting of 29 October 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
Lord Cochrane of Cults—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Children: UN Convention
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will ratify the UN convention on the rights of the child.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United Kingdom signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on 19th April 1990. We intend to ratify the convention as soon as possible.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, that is a disappointing reply, especially when one considers that 54 countries have now ratified the convention, including significant European states such as France, the USSR, Portugal and Spain. Does not the Minister agree that if Britain continues to drag its feet, our isolation within the United Nations will be almost as great as it is at present within the European Community? Is the Minister further aware that we need to ratify the convention urgently as the convention has provided that at the beginning of next year a 10-member committee will be set up? However, only countries that have ratified the convention can take part in the selection process. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will ratify the convention before that time in order to take part in that important procedure?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is disappointed with my reply. I can assure her that we are not dragging our feet over this issue. We have to consider carefully whether our domestic legislation is in harmony with the text of the convention. This is a matter which takes some time. It covers important, wide-ranging and complex areas of legislation which involve no fewer than nine government departments. As I have said, although this process may take some time, we shall ratify as soon as it is completed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there any truth in the report that the reason why the Government have not yet ratified the convention is because they oppose Articles 9 and 10 of the convention which lay down that children are not to be separated from their families? The articles further state that, if children are separated from their families, they should be reunited humanely. Does the Minister agree that that concept should not pose a difficulty? It is a point of compassion which I should have thought the Government would support at once. Will the Minister confirm that about 40,000 children are dying
1688
every day? Will the Minister further confirm that the Government's overseas aid will be increased next year and targeted to the needs of children?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the final point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition with regard to our aid programme for next year is a different issue. I do not have figures with me on that point. We may have to enter a reservation to protect the workings of our nationality and immigration laws; but this should in no way stand in the way of ratification. We shall submit the convention to Parliament for ratification once we have completed the process of scrutinising the compatibility of our legislation with the terms of the convention.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again, but I respectfully suggest that the Minister has not dealt with the point I made about Articles 9 and 10. Do these form an obstacle to the Government's ratification of the convention?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we may have to enter reservations. That is a matter which is under consideration at the present time. No final decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I recognise the need for proper scrutiny of the convention by Her Majesty's Government before ratification. However, would it not be possible to accelerate these processes somewhat considering that it is now nearly one year since the convention was opened for signature in the United Nations? Will the Government not support the Prime Minister in her unanimous approval as one of the 71 heads of state and government who approved the recent plan of action at the children's summit in New York which I witnessed as a representative of the British national committee of UNICEF?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's standing in this matter. The scrutiny that is required in this case constitutes a long and time consuming process. However, there is a further reason why the scrutiny takes a certain length of time in our case. We have to discover the attitudes of the 13 dependent territories to ascertain whether they wish to ratify the convention and whether they wish to enter reservations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition asked a specific question about Articles 9 and 10. The Minister did not answer the question in regard to those articles. If he is unaware of what the articles contain, the House will have its usual sympathy if he frankly admits to that fact.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I answered that question. There are areas where we are considering whether or not to enter reservations. We have not yet made any final decisions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is not part of the problem the fact that Articles 9 and 10 may well involve a substantial derogation from extant case law on immigration?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we may have to make a reservation to protect the workings of our nationality and immigration laws. However, I can

1689
assure the House that that will not affect the existing rights of children to join their parents in the United Kingdom.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. I pressed the point, as did my noble friend, because of a case which came to my attention of Kurdish parents in this country who applied for their child, who was seriously ill in Turkey, to join them here. Because of delays inherent in the system, of which the noble Lord is aware, the child was not allowed to come to this country and died. Does he agree that that is not in the tradition of governments in this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only reassure the noble Lord and the House that the Government will not be responsible for any unreasonable or unnecessary delay in the ratification of the convention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give the House and the people of this country an indication as to when the final decision will be made so that the position will be clear?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that once the process of scrutinising our legislation and assessing its compatibility with the convention is complete and once we have concluded our consultations with the dependent territories, we shall introduce the convention to Parliament for ratification.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure me that one of the reasons why the Government appear to be dragging their feet is not because they do not agree with Article 19, which deals with the protection of the child from all forms of physical or mental violence? I hope that that is not the case and that the noble Lord can give me that assurance.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House once again that we are not dragging our feet in this matter. Although two of our colleagues in the European Community—Portugal and France —have ratified the convention they did so only within the last two months, and it is unreasonable to insist that we are dragging our feet.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give more information in respect of some of the articles of the convention which, as the noble Lord said, we signed in April? Will the Government restore income support for 16 and 17 year-olds to a level which will enable those young people to secure independent accommodation, where necessary, in line with Articles 26 and 27?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is another question. However, I am quite happy to look into the matter and to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the House, will the noble Lord now reply to the question that was put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understand that I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he sought.

Post Office: Sunday Collections
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many Post Office collection boxes now have Sunday collections and how many do not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I understand that of the Post Office's 105,300 post boxes Sunday collections are being made from 20,300.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is he not aware that it is a very disappointing Answer in as much as the original announcement, made at the time of the increase in postal charges, indicated that whole areas would have a complete collection? Does not discriminating in this way, mainly against rural areas, undermine the whole doctrine which has supported the concept of the Post Office's monopoly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that my noble friend is disappointed. The 20,300 post boxes were chosen following a great deal of consumer research and consultation with users of the Post Office. Some 9,000 of those post boxes are in rural areas. The whole of the country is covered, apart from some communities in Highland areas which decided not to accept Sunday collections for religious reasons.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether any information is available as to the times of Sunday collections from those post boxes? I ask that question because near my home there are two post boxes from which Sunday collections are made but one has to post one's letters by midday. That is not nearly as convenient as 4.30 p.m., which was the time of the collection in the old days.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that in different parts of the country individual post boxes have different collection times.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as well as having no Sunday collection there is no collection from many post boxes in central London after 1 p.m. on Saturday? Does he agree that that means that a letter posted soon after lunch on Saturday cannot be collected until Monday and therefore does not reach its destination until Tuesday or Wednesday, and then only if you are lucky?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that Post Office management will read carefully the points that have been made on this Question and will respond accordingly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as my noble friend's original Answer revealed that about one in five boxes will have a collection on Sunday, can he say whether the post boxes will be selected area by area or whether collections will be made from 20 per cent. of post boxes in a number of areas? If it is to be the latter, could there be a distinguishing mark on those post

1691
boxes from which collections are made on Sundays so that one knows where to go when there are so few minutes in which to post a letter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the general rule will be that there will be a Sunday collection from all sorting offices, Crown post offices and sub post offices. Those post boxes will have a special sticker to say that there are collections on Sundays.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am one of those people who spends most of Saturday writing letters in order to stuff the post box on Sunday and who is anxious that now we have the service we do not lose it. Can the Minister tell me the rate of delivery of first class post from Sunday collections? Is the percentage delivered on Monday as high as on normal weekdays?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have no individual breakdown for weekdays but I understand that there has been an overall improvement of some 3.6 per cent. against the previous year, which beat the 3 per cent. target.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, when a final decision is made on Sunday collections, will the Minister ensure that due account is taken of the desire of many Post Office workers to share in the advantage of spending Sundays with their families as do so many other workers in this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there are vast numbers of workers who work during the weekends and at night. Decisions are taken by Post Office management after discussion with the unions concerned.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend know that last week I posted a letter on Friday morning to go by first class mail and it did not arrive in the centre of Birmingham until the following Wednesday? Will he ask the Post Office whether it believes the old statement that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we all have individual horror stories of the quality of the postal service. At the same time, I know my noble friend will agree that the vast majority of her letters arrive on time.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in parts of London an additional box has been added to the pillar box? Can he explain the reason for that?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why, after some months of such discrimination, there is still no indication on letter boxes of whether they are subject or not to a Sunday collection?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the Post Office has made it quite clear that it will plainly mark post boxes that have Sunday collections. I shall ask the Post Office to look into the matter.

NHS Trusts: Criteria for Approval
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the criteria on which the Secretary of State for Health will judge applications for NHS trust status and what weight will he give to expressions of opinion by doctors and nurses working in the National Health Service and to the views of the local communities concerned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the key criteria in assessing National Health Service trust applications will be tangible benefits to patients and improvements in the quality of the services offered; strong leadership and effective management; involvement of senior professional staff, including clinicians, in management; and financial viability. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take account of views expressed by all those with an interest, including health authorities, staff, patients, GPs, community health councils and the local community.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that her right honourable friend will take those interests into consideration. Is she aware that, in a very large number of districts where health service managers are seeking to opt out of district health authority control, polls have been held of consultants, local GPs and a cross-section of local opinion and that in the vast majority of cases there is massive opposition? Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to force NHS trusts on unwilling consultants, doctors, nurses and their patients, thus creating conflict and antagonism within a service that is already hard pressed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am very well aware that the noble Lord and his party are keen to whip up enthusiasm against National Health Service trusts. Such ballots as have been held nearly all ask different questions and apply to different constituencies. We have consistently made clear that it would not be appropriate to hold ballots on applications for trust status. Such applications will include complex and detailed proposals on service management and personnel matters. It would not be right to attempt to reduce those matters to a form which could be used as the basis of a ballot; nor would it be right effectively to give any one group a power of veto over a trust application. The Secretary of State will decide whether an application for trust status should be approved on the merits of the individual application and in the light of the views of all those concerned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is not just a question of prejudice. It is a question of judgment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is very difficult to consult the community since one cannot define the community? Will she take it from me that what people want is a free, comprehensive hospital service which uses its

1693
resources effectively and efficiently and therefore gives a better service? Is that not precisely what these trusts are designed to do?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is indeed an efficient and effective service that we seek. I remind noble Lords that National Health Service trusts will remain firmly within the National Health Service. I emphasise that consultation is built into the process.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the point of my noble friend's Question was to make certain that the answer she gave showed that all those involved in creating the new National Health Service trust hospitals had been taken into consideration? Can she say whether representatives of the majority of the people whom she mentioned are directly opposed to what the Government propose? If so, will their views prevail? Will she confirm that when they have made their points it will not, because the Government continue to ignore them, have been a waste of time?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in preparing formal applications regions have ensured that they have been given local publicity. They have sought the views of all those with an interest, including, as I said, health authorities, staff, patients, GPs, community health councils and the local community. All those views will be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he considers the application.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in this country we are very lucky to have an enormous amount of voluntary service given to hospitals? Although it is argued that it is difficult to consult the community, does she further agree that consulting voluntary associations which work in hospitals, such as the leagues of hospital friends, the WRVS and the Red Cross, would give a very good overall view of the feelings of the community?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes indeed. I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that those are exactly the kinds of organisation that we expect will have an input. We have made it clear that consultations should take place over a three-month period, and therefore there is time to obtain an input from all those interested.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether the Secretary of State will take into account the degree to which the individual hospital has been able to develop the resource management initiative—in other words, to modernise its management—before it can qualify to become a self-governing trust?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the financial viability of the unit concerned will be of extreme importance. Clearly those which have made considerable progress with the resource management initiative will be in an advantageous position.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the community health councils have the same rights in visiting trust hospitals as they do for non-trust hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, both types of hospital remain fully in the National Health Service.

Electricity Generation: Non-Fossil Fuel Levy
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government
Why nuclear and renewable generation of electricity are not separated for non-fossil fuel levy purposes.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, before I answer this Question, I should declare an interest, in that my family business has been engaged in exploring the possibilities of wind generation. The fossil fuel levy compensates the regional electricity companies in England and Wales for the additional costs they incur in fulfilling the non-fossil fuel obligations imposed on them. While separate obligations have been imposed for nuclear and renewable generating capacity, it would be unnecessarily complex to impose separate levies in respect of nuclear and renewables.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord in declaring an interest. I am concerned with certain, as I consider them, wholly desirable renewable schemes. Does the noble Lord agree that government policy is strongly to support the renewable generation of electricity, particularly in view of what is written in the White Paper on the environment? If so, does he further agree that a period of eight years for which there is levy support is too short a time in which to raise project finance for some of the larger schemes and to prepare a viable plan? While a number of smaller schemes could get by on that basis, is he aware that great difficulty could arise for larger schemes?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, under the NFFO, the 12 regional electricity companies have entered into contracts for over eight gigawatts of nuclear capacity and 170 megawatts nameplate capacity of renewables. That demonstrates the success of the policy to date.
At the moment I can see no advantage in separating the two until it is possible to review the success of the scheme in the light of experience. At present it is better for any adjustment to be made through prices rather than timescale.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that I have no interest to declare in this Question other than as a seeker after truth, as always.
Since the passage of the Electricity Act, the nuclear industry has been taken away from the privatisation system and kept in public ownership. In the light of that change, would it not be a sensible manoeuvre to make it entirely clear to the public whether they are

1695
paying a levy for nuclear energy, what the real costs to them of nuclear energy are and what the real costs of renewable energy are?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. Those costs will emerge in the declared accounts of Nuclear Electric and others; and it will become apparent what the levy will be.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the number of renewable schemes that have recently been agreed. They amount to 75. However, the total amount of megawatts installed will be only 170. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that a small sized power station would amount to more than that. Is that not evidence that only the smaller schemes are getting by and that many desirable larger schemes are finding difficulty in getting moving?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I take the noble Lard's point. We shall be reviewing the matter. I cannot reveal the details at the moment but I shall inform him.

Child Maintenance
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about child maintenance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be making a corresponding Statement in another place.
The Government have today published a White Paper, Children Come First, which sets out their proposals for a new system of maintenance for children. Copies have been placed in the Library.
These important proposals are a collaborative effort involving many departments of state. They are to be seen as a further step in the wide-ranging review of the family justice system which the Government have in hand. As with other aspects of that review, its aim is to give priority to the welfare of children and to highlight their parents' responsibility for ensuring it. It is a natural adjunct to the Children Act over which this House spent so much time and care in the last Session. It takes its place with the other items in that review such as divorce reform and the law on domestic violence on which Law Commission reports are expected and current work in departments on the arrangements for and place of conciliation, reconciliation and support services for the courts in family proceedings. At the same time my colleague the Home Secretary will be taking steps to ensure that maintenance is paid more reliably.
Every child has a right to receive care from his or her parents. Parents have a legal and moral responsibility to care for their children until the children are old enough to look after themselves. The parents of a child may separate. In some instances the parents nay not have lived together as a family at all. Events may change the relationship of the parents to each other. They may divorce, for example. But these events cannot in any way change the responsibilities of the parents towards their children.
1696
The payment of child maintenance is one important way in which parents fulfil those responsibilities. Government cannot ensure that families stay together. But we can and should ensure that parents make proper financial provision for their children whenever it can reasonably be expected.
The present system of maintenance is unnecessarily fragmented, and uncertain in its results. It is based largely on discretion; and it is operated through hundreds of courts and hundreds of social security offices throughout the United Kingdom. The cumulative effect is uncertainty and arguably inconsistent decisions about how much maintenance should be paid. In a great many cases, the maintenance awarded is not paid at all or the payments fall into arrears and take many weeks to re-establish.
Only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive maintenance regularly Over million lone parents and their children depend on income support. In 1989 only 23 per cent. of lone parents who were receiving income support received maintenance. Ten years ago the figure was 50 per cent. Income support represents 45 per cent. of the income of all lone parents. The cost in real terms to the taxpayer has risen from £1·4 billion in 1981–82 to £3·2 billion in 1988–89.
We have made improvements within the present system. These will help parents but they cannot solve all the problems. We now need strategic reform. Our proposals will deliver a single system available to all; consistent and predictable decisions about how much maintenance is to be paid; payments that bear a realistic relationship to the costs of caring for a child; a fair and reasonable way of deciding maintenance so it does not become a contest between parents to the detriment of the children; regular reviews of maintenance; a chance for children to share in their parents' standard of living; and continuing incentives for absent parents to work and to go on working; and we want to help caring parents who are ready and able to go to work to do so.
We do not want children to become dependent on income support whenever this can be avoided. It is not right that taxpayers should shoulder that responsibility if parents are able to do it themselves. After all, taxpayers include other families who are bringing up children.
We intend to achieve all these many objectives by introducing three important measures. The first is a formula for the calculation of maintenance. The second is to create a Child Support Agency which will assess, collect and enforce maintenance. The third is to make changes to the social security benefits which are paid to parents who work.
Before turning to the details of the formula I should tell the House that there will be a protected income level which is higher than income support. Nobody who is working will ever be left with less than that after maintenance is deducted. There will also be an

1697
upper income limit on the operation of the formula beyond which further support for the child will have to be sought in the courts.
Turning to the formula itself, it has three elements. First, there will be a maintenance bill which represents the day-to-day costs of caring for a child and which all parents should pay if they can afford to do so. The size of the bill will depend on the number and age of the children and will be based on income support rates.
Secondly, there will be an exempt income which the parent keeps before he pays any maintenance at all. So from his take-home pay he keeps enough to meet his own necessary expenses and his housing costs and the cost of those of his children who are living with him.
Thirdly, maintenance will be paid from the remaining income. We believe it is right that, once his expenses have been met, he should share the remaining income equally with his children until the maintenance bill has been paid. In most cases, this will mean that the absent parent will keep between two-thirds and three-quarters of his net, post tax, income. Those who can afford to meet the maintenance bill will continue to contribute to their children but at a lower rate.
Where the caring parent has enough income, she will also be expected to contribute towards the maintenance bill. Both parents are liable to support their children. We hope to apply this formula from early in 1992.
Absent parents who are receiving income support have the same legal and moral obligations towards their children as any other parents. As a general rule, they will be expected to make a nominal contribution from their income support for the maintenance of their children.
The second measure is the Child Support Agency, which will have responsibility for tracing absent parents, assessing, collecting and where necessary enforcing maintenance payments. It will need powers to make a legally binding assessment, to require the provision of information and to determine the method of payment. The agency will be required to review the maintenance payable every year. In Great Britain, the agency will operate as a Next Steps executive agency within the Department of Social Security. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make similar arrangements in Northern Ireland.
When the agency is fully operational, the courts will generally no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards. The courts will retain jurisdiction over related matters which arise when parents separate or divorce. These matters include residence of and contact with children, disputed paternity, property settlements and spousal maintenance. As at present, generally parents may choose to apply for an assessment or may make their own private arrangements. The details of the formula will be well known and they will be able to use the formula themselves.
However, where there is a third party interest, that of the taxpayer, parents will be obliged to use the
1698
agency's services. The taxpayer has an interest when the caring parent is receiving income support or family credit for herself and the children. It is also in the parent's own interests. If a regular pattern of maintenance is established it is easier to move from benefit to work. If a parent unreasonably declines to seek maintenance, it will be possible to make some deduction from her adult allowance. There will of course be exceptions for those rare circumstances where it is not in the interests of the children to seek maintenance.
The third measure, and one to which the Government attach great importance, is providing more help for those parents who are looking after children and who want to go to work. Receiving maintenance, in addition to their earnings, will provide an invaluable bridge between reliance on income support and the world of work. But we believe that we should offer further help still to parents who work. We shall be making two significant changes in the rules for benefits paid to working people.
To coincide with the introduction of the formula we shall introduce a maintenance disregard of £15 per week. The first £15 of maintenance paid will be ignored for the purposes of calculating entitlement to family credit, housing benefit or community charge benefit.
At the same time we shall reduce the number of hours work which qualify for family credit from 24 to 16 hours a week. Similar adjustments will be made to the rules for receipt of income support. This will apply to all claimants. It will be of particular value to lone parents. This will make it easier for parents to combine work with their responsibilities for caring for children. No one will lose from this change because full protection will be provided.
These measures will make it easier for parents to achieve independence through their own efforts. The choice must be the parent's own; but we know that many of them wish to work. It is right that we should take steps to help them realise those ambitions.
We shall bring forward legislation which provides for the use of the formula, the powers of the agency and rights of appeal against the agency's decisions. We are giving further consideration to the precise form of the appeal structure.
This is an integrated package of important measures which will help children. Where maintenance is paid, it advances the interests of all of us. It is in the interests of the children that they should be maintained by their parents. Maintenance provides them with a reliable source of income, and they learn about the responsibilities which family members owe to each other; and it is in the interests of the caring parents. Maintenance provides them with a bridge into work and greater independence.
I commend the proposals in the White Paper to your Lordships as a further valuable step in our staged reforms of the family justice system.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making that interesting Statement. The principles behind the Statement—namely, that fathers, together with mothers who can afford it, should be responsible for the maintenance of their children and that the children come first—are obviously acceptable to the whole House and certainly to the Benches that I represent. However, there are some questions that one must ask in order to ensure that the measures are not intended merely to save money for the Government but effectively to relieve hardship in regard to the children, wives and mothers in the cases that will be considered.
I noted that when making the Statement the noble and learned Lord said that when the agency is fully operational it will deal with the assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance payments. Then he used the words:
"the courts will generally no longer decide applications for child maintenance or applications to vary existing awards".
Does that statement mean that there will be exceptions to the rule and that the courts will be dealing with some applications? If so, what applications? Are they to be applications relating to people outside the income limits with which we are dealing when we think in terms of hardship, poverty and the general liability that will fall upon spouses who separate?
I also noticed that the noble and learned Lord dealt with the issue of lone parents. One has heard it said in many circles that in order for a lone mother to be able to claim the benefits through the agency when it is set up she must disclose the name of the father of the child. Is that right? Is it to be a qualification for an award c f maintenance that whatever the circumstances the lone mother must disclose the name of the father?
The noble and learned Lord also spoke of a possible appeals procedure which is to be worked out. Will provision be made for legal aid at the stage of first instance and also on appeal? It will be necessary for legal aid to be made available to parents with whom we shall be dealing in the main, and certainly in connection with an appeal.
I have read the Statement rapidly, as I am sure have other noble Lords who received copies. However, I have not seen or heard a reference to the way in which second families are to be treated. We often think of the children of the marriage that has broken up because the father has disappeared in order to set up another family. Under the regulations, how are the children of the second family to be protected?
The child support agency is also to have the task of enforcement. How will the agency enforce the payment of maintenance apart from those cases where deductions can be made from assets and income other than from earnings? Will that be done through the courts? What jurisdiction is the agency to have? One can think of many other questions. Indeed, I am sure that other noble Lords will raise further questions, but those I have asked have an application regarding the legal aspects.
1700
I have only one other comment to make in that context. There are many noble Lords who have repeatedly spoken with hope and have taken every opportunity to mention the family court. We did so last week when the Courts and Legal Services Bill came before your Lordships' House for consideration of Commons amendments. Will the business of obtaining uniformity through the agency mean that the family court will be made more distant? Many noble Lords considered that this very work could have been carried out by that court, providing uniformity and comfort for the family as a result of knowing that all its problems were being dealt with within the court's confines.
I repeat that the principles of the Statement may be right but we all wish to look at the details.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for making that interesting Statement.
We too on the Liberal Democrat Benches accept the principles behind the Statement. We too believe that fathers should be responsible for their offspring. We recognise also that the taxpayer has a legitimate interest in that matter. We are aware of the growing cost to the taxpayer. However, we do not wish our anxiety about that to become out of proportion with anxieties about other aspects of the problem. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord not to hope for too much from the application of this Statement both in terms of any possible deterrent effect on public morals and in terms of any possible reduction in expenditure.
The problem of single parents is not new. It has been with us as long as history. It has always been a cyclical problem. Attempts to deter the old Adam—if I may so put it—have never been particularly successful. There has always been a cyclical pattern. For example, if one looks at the rise around 1600, it is thought that to a large extent that was the result of unemployment and mobility—putting men in a position where they were not economically able to undertake the task of caring for a family. Therefore, I do not believe that this is something which maintenance applications can necessarily deter. I do not believe that it will save public expenditure quite as much as the Government hope.
If they are concerned about government expenditure, perhaps they will bear in mind that the cheapest way of reducing the bill for single parents is contraception. They might consider, for example, the position of the FPA clinics.
There are some crucial questions which cannot be answered by the information available to us. Phrases about the level of protected income sound all right so far, but we do not know exactly what that will mean in practice. In passing, I should like to ask not only the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but also whether the level of protected income will be index-linked. That will be quite important to its operation.
If that level of protected income is set too low, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about second families there is a risk—if the House will

1701
forgive me for putting it that way—of killing the gander which lays the golden eggs. There are plenty of cases of people who have taken the king's shilling, or whatever else one did in the past to evade such responsibility. If one sets the rate too high, that will be self-defeating.
Perhaps I may pursue the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the exclusion of the courts. I should like to know precisely how far that will go and, in particular, whether it will cover one of the commonest of all maintenance disputes; namely, the man who says, "You cannot make me maintain her. She is living with another man". I should like to know whether that dispute goes to the Child Support Agency or to the courts.
I warmly welcome the disregard. Indeed, I could not do otherwise without self contradiction. It is vital that the single parent of either sex should have an incentive to apply the procedure. The Child Support Agency is clearly a body about which we shall need to know more. I see no need to make any objection to it at present. I am interested.
The reduction in the number of hours needed to qualify for family credit is something which we can only welcome warmly. I should like to ask whether the procedure is to be used for attachment of earnings to maintenance orders. If it is, has there been any consultation on that matter with the Confederation of British Industry? That has a legitimate interest in the issue.
Finally, I should like to look with some care at the words:
"If a parent unreasonably declines to seek maintenance, it will be possible to make some deduction from her adult allowance".
That is a guarded form of words. However, in the light of past press reports, I am bound to wonder whether that is a procedure for pushing the mother to name the father of the child under the disincentive of some loss of benefit if she does not.
That has been tried before. It was tried in the times of Elizabeth I in Wiltshire. The result was that the mother named a man who had subjected her to sexual harassment. That man found it difficult to clear his name. I should like to ask whether the noble and learned Lord agrees that there are many good reasons for a mother not wishing to name the father of her child. Fear of violence is the most obvious reason. Desire to protect the man's position may be another reason. People may say that that is improper, but one cannot stop the fact that some mothers feel that. There may be a desire not to have the father involved in the upbringing of the child, and there may be perfectly good reasons for that, or it may be something as simple and elemental as a desire to wash that man right out of her hair. Those matters deserve respect; and whether or not we respect them, we cannot change them so we had better live with them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome of the principles of this Statement. Some questions have been asked and some detail has been requested. The situation is that the White Paper contains a good deal of detail. I am simply heralding the White Paper to your Lordships.
Perhaps I may take the very last question first as that is fresh in our minds; namely, about washing that man out of her hair and similar desires on the part of the lady unwilling to name the father. I believe that the phrases which we have used which the noble Earl kindly quoted covers that matter in the best possible way as a matter of principle; that is, the question of what is reasonable is in issue.
As regards the question about the courts that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the idea is that we should have a formula which applies and can be applied readily once the facts are ascertained. It will be the responsibility of the agency to inquire into those and to determine them.
I mentioned the question of an appeal from that determination, and we are considering the form of that. I mentioned also that there may be applications to the court in circumstances which I indicated. For example, that would have the effect of taking account of an income which is above the ordinary limit in particular cases. However, the general idea is to make this system of maintenance relatively simple to operate so that it will not require the interposition of the court in the ordinary situation.
Powers of enforcement were mentioned. I expect that the agency would have a variety of powers of enforcement available to it, and attachment of earnings would be one of those powers. I should say that while the White Paper sets out what is proposed, it invites comment on the way in which that may be carried out, and an opportunity for consultation will arise from that.
A very important question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the treatment of the second family. The primary rule is that a person is responsible for his own natural children. The situation as regards stepchildren is more difficult and the detail of that, so far as we have proposed detail upon it, can be found in the White Paper. I acknowledge that it is a difficult question. It will have a bearing on the protected level of income for that particular family.
The noble Lord is very attached to the family court and fears, without real reason, that the proposal may make what he regards as the family court more distant. The steps that we are taking and have taken are intended to achieve the ideals of the family court campaign, and the ideals that are dear to the noble Lord. We hope to minimise the amount of unnecessary conflict between parents over their children, and to have a graduated system of tribunals, from the lowest to the highest court, available to deal with cases involving children or families as may be appropriate to the nature of the problem in question.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about maintenance of the woman where, I believe he said,

1703
she is living with another man. We are not concerned with that. We are concerned with maintenance for the children. There will be an element in the maintenance of the child covering the need for someone to care for that child. Maintenance for the woman is a separate matter and is not subject to the agency. As to the protected income, the noble Earl asked whether it would be index linked. The level of protected income will be related to the income support levels and therefore will have built into it the changes appropriate for that.
As regards expenditure, it is important to have a proper system for the maintenance of children in the interests of the children. That is the primary aim of the change we are proposing. I believe that I have answered the questions put to me so far.
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, many of us in the Churches are profoundly distressed at the level of this problem in our country at the present time. Anything which the Government are able to do to meet the problem has our warm support. Like others who have asked questions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I support the principle of responsibility of those who have children and whose family relationships have broken down, whether men or women. My question relates to the protected level of income and how possible it will be to administer the system. One fear already expressed by noble Lords opposite is that some of the poorest people in our society will be affected by what is proposed, thereby making the problem for second families possibly worse.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can say whether it is possible to administer a system such as this simply enough for it to be generally understood? Anything unduly complex would cause more problems.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the idea of the formula is to try to enable that to be done. I know that the right reverend Prelate will be aware that it is always difficult to provide a simple rule which is just in all circumstances. We are endeavouring to provide a rule which is as simple as possible and which will do justice in the vast majority of cases. There may be exceptional circumstances; for example, at particularly high levels at which the court's intervention will be necessary. Apart from that, we are aiming at a system which will be reasonably simple to administer and which will do justice on the basis of the formula in the vast majority of cases.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, without going into the substance of this important Statement, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord for clarification. It has come to our notice that the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord is different from the Statement the Secretary of State is now making in the other place. I may be mistaken, but in the 40 years or so that I have been in these buildings I have never known that to happen before. I wonder whether the Statement the Secretary of State is making
1704
in the Commons will be repeated here after the noble and learned Lord has finished, and whether his Statement will be repeated in the House of Commons.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right. I made a Statement which it will not be necessary to repeat in the Commons. The substance of what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is saying in the Commons will bear a marked similarity to what I said. However, as both departments are very much involved in the matter it is appropriate that I should make the Statement to your Lordships and that the Secretary of State should make his Statement to the other place. The differences between the two are such as not to require their being repeated in either place. That will be seen when noble Lords have had a chance to examine the detail.
I wished to make the Statement because it is a very important statement of principle on family law generally. The support agency will be in the department of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Therefore he has a very direct interest in the matter also. It was thought right between us that we should arrange matters in the way we have. It is in the nature of an innovation for two Statements so closely related not to be repeated. I hope it may be an innovation in this case which the noble Lord will feel is, if anything, an improvement on the practice he has known over 40 years.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord; I do not criticise him. His admission that it is an innovation will be helpful to the whole House. I see the reasons perfectly well. I am obliged for his explanation.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I too can thank the noble and learned Lord for the Statement. In the light of what the Leader of the Opposition said, may I say that many of us are grateful that the noble and learned Lord has himself spoken on the matter inasmuch as it is very closely linked to the Children Act. The noble and learned Lord took that Bill through the House.
Perhaps I may ask a number of questions. Many of us welcome the fact that men are to be responsible for their children, whether in or out of marriage. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that under the Children Act 1948 it was suggested that men who could not afford to pay for their children should be exempt when the children were either removed for adoption or put into care? It was decided by all the social workers in the country that however small the assessment, those fathers should pay something—not for financial reasons but in order that a father should feel responsible for his children, and the children feel that their natural father was taking an interest in them. I therefore welcome that part of the Statement.
Will it be possible for mothers with young children —babies—to have the choice of staying at home and looking after those young children rather than going out to work? Can that be taken into account in the formula that is to be set up? Many of us believe that it is in the interests of very young children that they are

1705
cared for by their mother. Is it to be possible, as it is in France and other countries in Europe, for the mother to stay at home and look after her very young children?
I refer now to the agency that is to administer the situation. Will there be one agency in the country or separate agencies for different regions? How is a mother, or indeed a putative father, to appeal? Will they appeal to the agency or to the courts? How will it be done? How will the agency be set up? Who will serve on it? To which ministry will the agency be responsible? There are many ministries involved in this type of work. I think I have asked a sufficient number of questions for my noble and learned friend to be going on with.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend's questions are always well informed and important. I am sure that she has many more but perhaps the White Paper will answer some of them.
There will be one agency for Great Britain. It will be an executive agency of the Next Steps variety within the Department of Social Security; in other words, responsible to the Secretary of State for Social Security and on the basis of a Next Steps agency structure.
The intention is that a person wishing either to claim maintenance or to have maintenance liability determined will apply to the agency and the agency will then undertake the matter. As regards appeal, the precise machinery for appeal against an agency's determination will be a matter to be further considered and any views which your Lordships may have will be considered with great care. There is the possibility of having a form of tribunal as the appeal from the agency. Alternatively, the matter might go to the courts.
As regards the formula, as I said, this will be based on income support considerations. However, it may well be right that a proportion of that should be related to the element of need for a carer. That might well reflect the point made by my noble friend.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I put a specific matter to my noble and learned friend. He will be aware, of course, that it is a feature of the divorce law in England, and probably elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that before a court grants a dissolution of a marriage it has to be satisfied as to the care and maintenance of the children; otherwise the parents do not get their final decree. I did not understand from the Statement whether what has been said this afternoon will interfere with that feature or whether it will be retained in its present form.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what I have said this afternoon does not touch directly on that. The Statement concerns simply the question of maintenance responsibilities. If the parties can agree on maintenance, there is no need for any action under this system. On the other hand, even if parties have been able to agree, questions may arise later on the enforcement of their agreement. If that happens and a party wishes to use the agency, the agency would be
1706
operating in accordance with the formula system generally. Other matters, of course, will remain with the court subject to the effect of the revisions of the Children Act on the matters to which my noble and learned friend refers. I do not see that the present proposals will affect that position. The main effect on the matter to which my noble and learned friend refers will derive from the provisions of the Children Act which modify it.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I have a question which may have a simple answer. While I, too, cannot possibly disagree with the principle that fathers should be responsible for the maintenance of their children, nevertheless for a single mother bringing up her children the bottom line is that the cash comes in at the end of the week so that she can feed and maintain her children. If a mother is reliant on maintenance rather than income support, or part of each, and there is a breakdown in the payment of the maintenance, what can be done for that family in the short term?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is part of the reason why I believe it is sensible to have an executive agency within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Security. The system would certainly seek to pursue the maintenance obligations by pursuing the liable parent. However, if for some reason the payment were not forthcoming under the agency's efficient collection system, of course the ordinary income support system would be in place.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I have one question for the noble and learned Lord, but first I welcome the fact that similar legislation will be introduced in Northern Ireland by a separate order. I hope that there will be no time lag in its introduction into Northern Ireland and that it will coincide with operations within the United Kingdom. My question refers to appeals. I did not hear the noble and learned Lord reply to the question concerning legal aid. Will such assistance be given in cases going before a tribunal? Does the noble and learned Lord envisage that happening?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, the detail in regard to appeals is still open to consideration, as the White Paper will show. The precise form of an appeal has yet to be determined; therefore, any question of legal aid does not arise at this juncture. The question is whether appeals should go to some form of tribunal, existing or new, or to the courts. That is a matter still to be determined and views on the matter would be extremely welcome.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues on tackling a problem which is a legal and social minefield. We have not yet had the opportunity to see the White Paper but presumably there will be equality in treatment. The noble and learned Lord used the masculine gender, but will he confirm that the mother and father will be equally responsible, particularly bearing in mind that, quite rightly, women have careers and are just as capable of leaving their families as men?

1707
My second question relates to access. I have heard many men say that they would be happy to pay maintenance—indeed, have wanted to pay maintenance—but have been denied access to their children. That hurt them very much and, indeed, discouraged them from paying maintenance or continuing with maintenance.
I ask one final question which relates to the family support and family income system. Will the amount of income support —I do not know how to phrase this —still encourage men, and indeed women, to go to work rather than become unemployed and exist simply on the amount of income support?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as it is fresh in my mind I take the last question first. Certainly part of our aim is to do nothing to discourage people from working and remaining independent. Therefore, the arrangements are proposed with that very much in mind.
As regards the first point, I used the masculine gender in describing the absent parent, and the White Paper is careful to point out that that is a very common case. Therefore, we use the masculine gender, but the proposals are intended to apply equally if the absent parent is a woman. I use the phraseology that the noble Lord will find in the White Paper, which makes it absolutely plain that we intend that the proposals apply to both genders equally.
The noble Lord raised a question about access, which is of vital importance in practical terms. I believe that he will find the issue mentioned in the White Paper. It is another matter to know precisely how to deal with it. If the noble Lord has help to offer us on that we shall be glad to hear it.
Speaking generally, the truth is that the father should have access to his child and he has an obligation to maintain his child. However, there may be circumstances in which it is not in the interests of the child that the father should have access. If the court takes that view, the result ought not to be to remove the father's responsibility for maintenance. As the father is responsible for maintenance, he should pay it, whether or not he has access.
Anyone who has had experience of dealing with litigation in this area knows that fathers often put the two together, as the noble Lord did in the example he cited. That is perfectly understandable though the two are really distinct. The responsibility to pay maintenance for the child is a general and subsisting obligation. Sadly, there may be cases in which the court decides that it is not appropriate in the best interests of the child that a particular father should see the child. It is a problem. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. As I say, any help which noble Lords can give in providing the machinery to solve the problem will be much appreciated.
I re-echo here what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. It is a practical view which I share. It is unwise to expect too much of any system. To be able to solve this problem completely may be expecting too much of the system. However, we have the matter very much in mind.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord forgive my persistence? The point that I wish to raise is particularly relevant to the interesting question which my noble friend asked. If there were to be established a family court where questions of access could be dealt with at the same time as issues concerning maintenance, would that not be so much better than setting up a separate agency? The two matters would dovetail. Is the noble and learned Lord, with all his knowledge and experience, not aware of this? We may have a situation where maintenance is awarded against a father in a situation such as that to which my noble friend referred. The child may be illegitimate. The circumstances would be such that maintenance would be awarded by a different tribunal, at a different place from that where access may be dealt with, if, for example, it was a divorce matter. Are we not separating two matters that should be judged together?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, will my noble and learned friend forgive my intervention? We have now spent 21 minutes on this matter. After my noble and learned friend has replied we should move on to the next business.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the object is to provide a simple way to arrive at maintenance. As I pointed out in the Statement, a variety of discretions is available at the moment to determine the amount of maintenance. I believe that, generally, maintenance should be a relatively simple matter and determined by a formula, with an agency having the power to get the necessary information and provide the necessary help in collection which is available to it.
Access is a distinct question. As I said earlier, the considerations are quite different. Considerations in respect of maintenance and the responsibility for it do not disappear, whatever the other circumstances. Access is a different matter. It is appropriate that it should be decided by the court where it is contested. It is important that these two issues are seen as distinct for the reasons which I have sought to explain.

Zetland Masonic Sick and Widows and Orphans Fund Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
City of Dundee District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Air Traffic Control and Civil Aviation: ECC Reports
3.56 p.m.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd rose to move, That this House takes note of the reports of the European Communities Committee on Air Traffic Control (12th Report, HL Paper 41), and on Civil Aviation: A Free Market by 1992? (16th Report, HL Paper 63).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I refer to the two reports that emanate from Sub-committee B of the Select Committee on European Communities. The first relates to air traffic control and the other to civil aviation and a free market by 1992. I feel that I should say a word of appreciation to the very many witnesses who provided valuable evidence to the committee. Without their evidence I do not believe that reports of this nature could have been produced. I would also like to thank our special adviser, Mr. Hofton, from the Cranfield Institute of Technology. I wish also to give a very special word of appreciation to our remarkable clerk, Simon Burton.
Since I shall be leaving Sub-committee B in November because of the rotation rules, I thank all my colleagues on that committee for the very noble work that they have done and the heavy burden that they have borne. It is not just taking evidence in inquiries that takes up the time; it is the mass of paper that has to be scrutinised if the proper process of scrutiny of these committees is to be performed. Despite the very heavy pressure, I am quite convinced that in no way should there be any diminution in the scrutiny of EC proposals before Parliament.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, is present here to answer what are both complex and important issues. I am also delighted that my noble friend Lord Clinton Davis is here. I hope that he will be speaking from the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his promotion and on representing my party on the subject of transport. With his past connections with the Commission as a commissioner, he will be able to provide us with an enormous degree of information and advice.
Air traffic control is part of the infrastructure of transport. Infrastructure is a prerequisite for a healthy society, whether it be concerned with industry or trading, road, rail, the horse or shipping. Air transport is a component part of the infrastructure of transport. Air traffic control is an essential part of that infrastructure. We are already seeing signs of congestion and delay, particularly in the South East of England. It may be that new airport capacity will provide some answer. However, the provision of new facilities will only aggravate the situation unless we can finds ways and means to ensure that our air space is used more efficiently than at present.
The committee did not inquire into aspects of air traffic control such as equipment and staffing levels but we received evidence of the incompatibility of much of the equipment decided upon by national governments and also of very poor forms of communication between transport centres. We decided that we would concentrate on the Commission's proposals, particularly as the Select Committee on Transport of another place was looking into the question of air traffic control in this country.
The Commission's proposals are set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the report. In taking evidence it became clear that the central issue was whether or not the Commission should have a significant role in
1710
setting and implementing policy. The committee concluded that it preferred at present—I stress "at present"—the decision of the Council of Ministers that the role should be more modest since there are already in existence various international organisations with legal competence for resolving political and economic problems, organisations representing countries which are not members of the Community. We took the view that if change was necessary it would be better done through evolution.
We make a number of proposals in the report which centre mainly around greater co-ordination between the various authorities already in existence. We suggest that the Commission should consider, and Ministers consider, whether an observer role would be more apposite than the role proposed by the Commission itself. I should like to ask the following questions. How will Ministers ensure that the present European Civil Aviation Conference recommendations are implemented? I refer to paragraph 35 of the report. In particular, will the Commission produce proposals for their implementation as part of Community law thus making them legally binding on the Twelve? I refer to paragraph 42 of the report. The Council of Ministers needs to ensure effective co-ordination between the work of the various bodies. Is the Minister confident that this will be sufficient to provide effective responsibility for long-term planning? Can he tell the House what use is being made of Community money under the structural funds to solve local air traffic control problems? That is referred to in paragraph 41.
I turn to the second report referred to in the Motion. All of us are aware of the dramatic increase in the past 25 years in both passengers and freight. And there is every sign that this increase will continue. We have all witnessed, or participated in, congestion and delays. What is now happening should be a warning to us.
The committee recognised that the industry has been and to some extent remains highly protected. In 1987 the Commission brought forward a series of proposals with the intention of liberalising the regime. It is fair to say that little change has taken place as a consequence of those proposals. Progress, where it has been achieved, has been through bilateral agreements such as that between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
The package of proposals is in many ways very radical and, taking the known attitude of some governments, very brave. If the proposals are implemented much greater opportunity for competition will arise. Whereas in the first report the committee preferred the Council of Ministers' approach, in the second report the committee fully supported the Commission and was in some ways critical of some governments' reactions to the proposals. If we can sweep away the legislative protection—an objective these proposals go a good way towards achieving—how will we drag this industry screaming into the free market? How will we create and maintain competition? The Commission's

1711
proposals are set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. I shall deal with just two of them. I refer, first, to the question of fares.
Under the present provisions, if an airline wishes to introduce a new fare structure on a route—between, let us say, London and Paris—and one of the governments wants to refuse, that is the end of the matter and the air fare cannot be introduced. The new proposal means that there will have to be double disapproval. In other words, both governments concerned with the route will have to disagree. If that proposal were to be brought forward and implemented a great deal could be achieved in regard to the liberalisation of air transport.
The second and perhaps more important proposal relates to access and capacity sharing. This is set out in paragraph 5 of the report. The proposal on market access and capacity sharing would oblige a member state to grant an operating licence to any carrier established by that state without discrimination provided that it met the necessary technical and economic standards. Member states would also be required to grant route licences to all economically viable services, to grant traffic rights to carriers established by other member states—the so-called third and fourth freedom rights—on almost all of the intra-Community international routes, and increase the fifth freedom services and limited cabotage within the Community. This proposal received the fullest support of the committee. The two proposals taken together would bring about a radical change in the operating regime. The committee generally concluded that, while it welcomed the progress made by the Council of Ministers, a lot needed to be done if a fully liberalised market was to be achieved by 1992. The report commended the laudable zeal of the Government and recognised that it is not shared by other member states.
What is the main theme of the report? The committee started from the consumers' interest, which means reliable services at a realistic and affordable cost. One way to achieve this would be through competition between more airlines. However, for a number of reasons the committee concluded that this was not necessarily the answer. Those reasons are set out in paragraphs 88 and 90 of the report. The presence of a large number of carriers does not necessarily guarantee competition. If one adds to that the shortage of infrastructure capacity, the conclusion is that the number of airlines operating is less important than ensuring aggressive competition between them. We say in paragraph 100:
"It is airlines' behaviour that needs to be regulated and not the structure of the market".
The logical conclusion of that is that the committee would not be opposed to the European aviation industry containing only a few large airlines provided that those airlines competed. There is no reason why British Airways and Lufthansa should not fight hard to obtain the best deal for the consumer flying from London to Frankfurt, or, for that matter, from Frankfurt to Rome or from London to Paris.
The main question is how will this be achieved? American experience shows that deregulation without effective anti-trust laws led to high fares and a lack of consumer choice. There is a corresponding fear that without the stimulus of smaller airlines, Europe's large carriers will carve up the market and strike "under-the-counter" deals, or, as in the case of Lufthansa and Air France, a "non-aggression" pact. The report's conclusion is that the Community's competition rules provide the answer. In paragraph 102, we refer to this and say that,
"Community rules must protect the consumer".
The Commission should be given the powers it needs to enforce them.
I have several questions to put to the Minister in this respect. First, how adequate are the powers of the new merger control regulation? Secondly, how many, and what size, mergers in the aviation sector would it apply to? That is dealt with in paragraph 105. Thirdly, what other powers has the Commission to tackle anti-competitive practices, such as artificially low fares and unfair selling practices? Fourthly, what proposals are under discussion in the Community to boost the Commission's powers, and how soon will they be adopted by the Council?
There is a new proposal which has just been put before the Committee. In a sense it relates to one of the comments which were made in the report. It concerns the need to give the Commission power to act very quickly when there are signs of predatory practices being adopted by airlines. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government will be supporting that proposal and what are the chances of it being implemented in the very near future?
The committee spent a good deal of time on slot allocation. Efficient operation requires a slot for the aircraft's take off, a slot for the flight and a slot for its landing; it also needs a similar process for its return journey. The present slots available at London Heathrow and Gatwick Airports, and at other major airports, are those agreed by the airlines. They are known as the "grandfather rights". On the face of it the system appears to be working well, but it provides the opportunity for protectionism and the frustrating of new entrants.
Sub-Committee B took evidence on slot arrangements. It considered a number of alternative suggestions and proposals. Members of the committee recognised that the present system may hinder competition and frustrate new entrants. However, considering the complexity of ensuring the efficient movement of aircraft, the present system would appear to be the one which should remain in force. Nevertheless, we very much welcome the fact that the Commission is undertaking its own inquiries into the matter, and also the fact that the Minister has written to the CAA asking it to inquire in to the operation of the system.
The report calls for a greater transparency in the system and looks for the Commission to produce proposals for reform. Can the Minister say when this is likely to take place? Is the delay caused by the

1713
Commission trying to get as many views as it can, or has it occurred simply because there is no obvious solution to the problem? So far as concerns greater transparency, can he say whether he is satisfied that the working of the scheduling committees is open to effective scrutiny? How do the Government interpret the provision which exempts slot allocation from the competition rules, provided that it is carried out "without discrimination"? What do they have in mind by the use of those two words?
In paragraph 98 the report also calls for airlines using "grandfather rights" to justify the type of aircraft they use, so long as the customer's wish for frequency of service is considered. Is the Minister aware of any cases where airlines use an aircraft with an excessive passenger capacity merely to retain control over a slot?
There are two further points that I wish to make in connection with slot arrangements. First, the report recognises the importance of the worldwide system of slot allocation. Therefore the Commission ought to ensure that any proposals it makes can be fitted into the IATA procedures and should aim to develop and improve such procedures rather than trying to satisfy all parties (perhaps by some unworkable bureaucratic compromise). The committee will be looking at the Commission's proposals in more detail when they are published. Can the Minister say how the Government are contributing to the deliberations of the Commission? Are they working with the CAA on a study of slot allocation options and, if so, when will the results be published?
I am sorry that I have not given the Minister notice of this question, but it has become rather important in view of recent press reports. Do the Government believe that slots at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports can be sold as United Airlines and Pan Am have done in the United States? There is the further possibility of United acquiring the slots at present held by Pan Am at Heathrow. Are such slots a marketable asset of the airlines? If that is the case, such a purchase means that the acquiring company has those slots in perpetuity. Moreover, those slots are unlikely to become available to new entrants.
I return now to the subject covered in the package of measures agreed by Ministers. Especially welcome were: a greater limit for the fifth freedom and the inter-regional services; the relaxation of multiple designation thresholds; and, the abolition of capacity controls. However, two important decisions will not come into force until 1993. The first is the introduction of cabotage. Can the Minister say how the Community's proposals are affected by the Chicago convention? Secondly, in the case of double disapproval for fares, will the Government be urging the Commission to study the benefits of the double disapproval system which at present exists between the United Kingdom and Ireland?
The latter leads me to one final area of concern to the committee. I refer to safeguards against unjust fares. Do the Government agree with paragraph 109 of the report which calls for consumer groups and
1714
individuals to have a right to monitor fare levels and to make representations to the Commission in a more formal way than is now possible, perhaps through an advisory committee? What will they be doing to ensure that those concerned receive,
"accurate and timely data on airline costs and performance",
as is applicable in the United States?
The report covers many other matters which could be passed over in the debate, except perhaps for the question of negotiations with "third countries". This is dealt with in paragraph 113 and it is a subject which Sub-Committee E on Law and Institutions will almost certainly be considering early in the new year.
In conclusion, I commend the two reports to the House. I believe that the Commission's proposal creates opportunities for competition and with it consumer choice. However, it does not ensure that the operators will compete. The Commission's objective is correct: it is the need for users to have a wide choice of services at as low a cost as is possible, while maintaining the highest safety standards. That will not be easy to accomplish. In many respects, it goes against the whole nature of commerce. As the noble Lord, Lord King (who was referred to in the report) said with great truth,
"It is the motivation in every businessman to become a monopoly".
I fully support that view. I believe that to be a fact and something which the Government and the Commission must bear in mind in seeking liberalisation through the Community.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on Air Traffic Control (12th Report, HL Paper 41), and on Civil Aviation: A Free Market by 1992? (16th Report, HL Paper 63). —(Lord Shepherd.)
4.19 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, not just for the extremely interesting and, if he will allow me to say so, extremely lucid speech explaining some highly complicated matters but for the work which his sub-committee has done on those two important subjects. I am glad that your Lordships' House is now debating the two reports. Perhaps I may also add how glad I am that I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Apart from his experience as a European Commissioner, he will recall that a number of years ago when I was chairman of the CAA he was a Minister in the Department of Trade, which for some reason was then the department concerned. We had many and, from my point of view, most helpful dealings at that time for which I have always been grateful to him. I shall listen to what he has to say with especial interest for that reason.
I have less enthusiasm for those who printed and bound the reports. As some of your Lordships may have discovered, there are pages missing and there are pages interposed at the wrong place. They are therefore not easy reading. In view of the high standard of government reports to which we are accustomed, it is a pity that these have suffered at the

1715
hands of the printers some considerable and dislocating errors. I hope that my noble friend the Minister is prepared—if I may use the phrase—to administer a raspberry in that direction.
I shall speak first about the report on air traffic control. The problem is that colloquially when we discuss the EC and its doings we refer to it as Europe, but it is not the whole of Europe by any manner of means. There are many important countries—from an aviation point of view Switzerland is one that is obvious, as well as the countries of Eastern Europe —that are not members of the Community. So it would be difficult to put into the hands of the Commission a system of European air traffic control because it would involve flying over countries that would have no say in the arrangements and which on the grounds of national sovereignty and interest might very well reject such flights.
It is a great mistake to use the word "Europe" as a synonym for the Commission, but it is a mistake that we all make. These two reports bring out the fact that, important though the Community is and important though the countries which it contains are, they are not the whole of Europe. There is a non-Community element and therefore when we are dealing with air traffic control, which in the nature of things involves flying aver the whole of the Continent, it is inconceivable that the Commission should be given responsibility for it. Eurocontrol, which for all its limitations and imperfections still exists, is the basis upon which development should take place.
Eurocontrol operates in and with the co-operation of all the countries of Europe concerned with aviation —the vast majority of countries—and does not suffer from the disadvantage from which the Commission suffers in respect of limited areas of responsibility. Perhaps. I may interpose the thought that that issue rather strengthens the view of those who feel that in general matters the Commission should concentrate more on widening rather than on deepening.
I come now to the more important of the two reports and perhaps the more difficult. It is the one dealing with the liberalisation of services. I agree with what the sub-committee says in the first paragraph of its report:
"The objective is to provide the customer with the range of services that he wants at a price reasonably related to the operating costs of efficient airlines. To achieve this, a radical transformation is now required in an industry traditionally dominated by a cosy cartel of national 'flag carrier' airlines each protected by its government and with no incentive to compete".
That sets out the current situation in a nutshell. There are too many national airlines in Europe. It is natural for governments who have a national airline to try to preserve it, almost regardless of the needs of the customer. Some of the smaller countries in Europe —to avoid giving offence I shall not name them— would do better to drop their idea of having a national airline and collaborate with the larger airlines that operate on the Continent.
It is a sad fact, as the report brings out, that the cost of air travel per mile in Europe is far greater than the cost per mile in almost any other part of the world. If
1716
one contrasts it, for example, with air travel in the United States, people can travel about three times as far in the United States for the same money. The present situation, to which the sub-committee properly addressed itself, is an unfortunate and unhappy one.
Here again, of course, the issue is complicated by the matter to which I referred in the context of air traffic control; that is to say, that the Community embraces part but not the whole of Europe. That again makes it much more difficult for the Community to take effective action in the liberalisation of air transport because it has no authority in respect of airlines which are the property of non-Community countries. That is a difficulty which may again point to the desirability to which I referred of widening rather than deepening.
One or two points arose to which the subcommittee referred to which I should like to draw attention. It was apparently suggested by the Commission's officers in Brussels that VAT should be imposed upon air fares. I hope that that suggestion will be rejected. It will not cheapen air fares; it will make them more expensive. I believe that VAT is a bad tax, somewhat inflationary in effect and inequitable in operation; but, in any event, to extend it to air travel would be a retrograde step. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reject the proposal. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will make it clear that the idea will not be given sympathetic consideration.
Genuine competition in air transport is essential if prices are to be kept at a reasonable level. I hope that my noble friend will say something about that topic. We have to distinguish—I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did altogether clearly distinguish—between air traffic inside the European Community and that from Community countries with the rest of the world. From the point of view of our own civil aviation, that is the most important aspect of all.
That brings me to another point on which I differ from the Commission; namely, the suggestion which it appears to be about to make that control of negotiations over flying rights from Community countries to the outside world should be vested in the Commission. I can imagine few things more disastrous for British civil aviation. After all, British civil aviation operates world-wide. After the United States, we have the largest international system of airlines in the world, whereas the overseas air navigation of some of our European friends is very restricted. It would be disastrous to hand over to the Commission negotiation of what is a matter of the greatest importance to civil aviation and thus to the British economy, for our civil aviation makes a major contribution to the balance of payments. After all, the interests of most of the European members of the Community in this matter are quite different from ours. They are much more concentrated on air traffic within Europe, whereas our interest is substantial in Europe but even greater all over the world. I hope that that idea will be rejected.

1717
In that context I read with great interest the excellent evidence tendered to the sub-committee by Singapore Airlines. Having travelled a certain amount with Singapore Airlines I have the highest regard for them. They are among the most efficient and comfortable airlines on which to travel anywhere in the world. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will agree that their evidence to his committee was clear and to the point. They make strongly the point, which I rather briefly made, about the unsuitability of the idea put forward by the Commission. I therefore hope that it will be rejected.
It is now rather a tendency of the Commission to seek to expand its activities in a great many directions. That is largely the work of the bureaucracy. I doubt whether it is the purpose and intention of those nominally responsible at the head of the organisation, but the Brussels bureaucracy—sometimes, as your Lordships know, known frivolously as the Brussels sprouts—is apt to extend its scope in human terms, as are most bureaucracies. It is important that we should watch that it does not extend its no doubt in many ways beneficent activities into areas such as this, which would be extremely unsuitable.
The issue that needs tackling, as the report brings out, is the high level of fares in Europe. If we can get rid of the cosy state of affairs in which national airlines have to be kept going and the consumers' interests rank below those of the people responsible for the airlines we shall greatly improve the facilities for the consumer. That is of the greatest importance. If the European concept is to be a success, people must be encouraged to travel to other European countries. The more they see of each other, the more they realise that the old-fashioned type of prejudice against foreigners is wholly unfounded; the more friendly they can be in personal terms, the better. However, if you make air travel, which is now the best and most used method of travel in Europe, inordinately expensive, you inevitably prevent people from travelling as much as they would wish. It is therefore not only in the interests of aviation, as it certainly is, but very much in the interests of the public and of the European Community that air fares in Europe should be restrained.
I hope that in considering that matter Her Majesty's Government will always have in mind the two aspects of civil aviation policy—the policy to be pursued in Europe, to which I have just referred, and the policy of developing our airlines' activities all over the world. Again, if one wants good advice on that subject, one can look at the evidence of Singapore Airlines because it is backed by a remarkable performance. As your Lordships know, Singapore is a tiny island. It consists of hardly any territory, yet it has built up an airline which operates successfully all over the world. I believe that the airline now operates to some 50 countries. We should treat its advice on that aspect of aviation seriously because it is based on experience and practical efficiency.
I am delighted that we are having this debate, not only to show respect for the work of the
1718
sub-committee but to underline your Lordships' concern with these enormously important matters. Having had some contact with the aviation industry in the past, as your Lordships know, I realise that a great deal of the future well-being of this country depends on the success, expansion and development of British civil aviation. In so far as the committee's report will help in that good work, it is doubly to be applauded.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with whom, as he said, I had the pleasure of working as a Minister and when he was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I think that ours was a positive, worthwhile and happy working relationship. He is always eloquent, persuasive and a wee bit provocative, as he has been this afternoon. He has not disappointed us in that regard. If I join issue with him on one or two matters, he will not be surprised.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his Committee on their excellent work. They have examined with great thoroughness a considerable amount of evidence on the most complex issues in relation to both matters.
I must declare my interests in a number of respects at the outset. First, I had some responsibility for the development of the 1987 package, as it has become known, together with Commissioner Peter Sutherland and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who saw that quite rightly as an integral part of the development of the internal market proposals in which he played such a significant role in the Commission and, incidentally, was always a friendly and helpful colleague as far as I was concerned.
I have another interest in that I am the president of a newly formed organisation known rather inelegantly as the European Cockpit Association which is made up of pilots' organisations from the 12 member states and which seeks to negotiate pay and conditions on a pan-European basis. That is a worthwhile enterprise.
It is a great pity that the 1987 package was delayed for one year as a result of a dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain over the issue of Gibraltar. That was a wasted year. We had the package in place in December 1986 and that extra year would have given us an additional opportunity to see how the package would work out in practice. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd that little was achieved by reason of that package. I should add that not too much was ever claimed for the package: it was a first step. But it provided the opportunities for removing the veto powers of member states and airlines over tariff proposals that were made by another member state's airlines. It provided new opportunities with regard to fares and more flexibility in relation to capacity. It provided greater market access and some limited fifth freedom rights—and I shall return to those rights later on if I have time to do so. Air traffic rights were created for the first time at European

1719
Community level. Some new services, although not enough, were started up. I claim therefore that there was value in what was achieved under that package.
On this highly complicated matter there is generally a clear need for a balanced approach. I acknowledge that balance is difficult to achieve. I believe it was the comedian Dave Allen who once said that if one seeks to achieve true balance, one needs a chip on both shoulders. He was right in many respects. There has been far too much special pleading in this area, and far too much ideology has been put forward over the years. I believe the Commission has been absolutely right to stress the virtues of greater competition. However, it has never spoken about deregulation in the American sense. It was right for the Commission to seek to meld aviation into a more comprehensive approach to transport problems generally. Under Commissioner Van Miert the concept of the complementarity of the different modes of transport is being developed. I believe that needs to be stressed quite as much as the need to stimulate competition. They are both important issues. It is also right for the Commission to assert that the Community and the member states must never lose sight of the importance of infrastructural progress, most especially in terms of civil aviation. Nor must they ever lose sight of the fact that safety must never be compromised.
This debate takes place at a period of immense difficulties for the airlines. I heard it predicted on the news today that in 10 years' time the industry is likely to suffer losses of approximately £5 billion a year. The chairman of American Airlines, when speaking of his results, said, succinctly, "We appear to be in a position that is stinko". That is not perhaps the most elegant term but we can all understand what he was getting at. The airlines are facing massive increases in overheads. Return; are diminishing and the climate for investment is poor. There are likely to be cutbacks in staff and in routes, and fuel-thirsty old aircraft must be phased out. The result of that is that overall fares are likely to increase, whatever decisions the Community may take. However, I suppose that some bargains may be available to fill the back of aircraft.
The major problem is that the Council of Transport Ministers have been guilty of inertia in all areas of transport. Indeed, the ministers had refined inertia into a fine art over the years. It has taken pressure from the public, the Commission and the courts—that point is demonstrated in the report we are considering —to get the show on the road. That has clearly been the case as regards transport policy on land, sea and air.
In the field of civil aviation some rather patchy progress has been made. But Ministers clearly stalled for too long over the Commission's aviation proposals which were tabled as long ago as 1985. The anti-liberalisers used any and every argument, and notably the argument about safety, to obstruct progress on policies they did not like. I know only too well that that was the case. The liberalisers argued for too long for the pace to be set at such a rate that the poorer member states who were operating national airlines often with heavy state aid—maintaining their
1720
airlines as virility symbols—simply could not keep up. The liberalisers did not pay enough attention in my view to the serious arguments about air traffic control problems and safety. The fact is that there is truth in both sets of arguments. They are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why liberalisation cannot proceed by providing proper safeguards for safety, infrastructure and socially acceptable behaviour. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, consumers must be taken into account, as must the people who are employed in the industry. They all have a real part to play. Above all, member states must willingly devote more resources to these objectives. However, they have declined to do so over the years.
I mention specifically in this connection the report on air traffic control and the criticisms of the Commission. Some of those criticisms are correct but some, I suggest, are misplaced. There is great public anxiety and irritation about the failure to provide a more effective pan-European air traffic control system. The public pay for that. Vested interests have stalled on this issue over a period of some 25 years. Absurd ideas about sovereignty have abounded and have prevented progress being made. In my judgment the present limited pan-European developments referred to in the report would not have come about if the Commission had not taken the initiative in the form of the communication to the council in 1988. I respectfully submit that the report fails to appreciate that point.
The Commission was right to address these issues. The Consumers' Association says that the matter has nothing to do with the Commission. However, I believe that it has everything to do with the Commission when consumer interests are prejudiced right across the Community. The initiative took place against the backcloth of the liberalisation proposals and massive public concern and the lassitude of member states to act, save for West Germany and the Benelux countries, in support of the concept on which Eurocontrol was founded. While the Commission has never sought to present itself as an air traffic control regulatory authority, I believe it has an important role to play—this again is not sufficiently emphasised in the report—in complementing the work of Eurocontrol and in harmonisation in significant areas such as technical harmonisation and improving communication and the compatibility of air traffic control systems. It could complement the work of Eurocontrol in pressing for more advanced automation and in focusing on the need to make more military airspace available for civil air transport. It could help to make more efficient use of airspace generally and its proposals for mutual acceptance of licences of controllers and other staff and of common training programmes are of major significance. The opinion of the committee made no reference to those matters although they are referred to in the evidence.
The Commission also has a role in research and in giving the force of Community law to decisions made by other institutions, thereby reinforcing those institutions. It has a role in providing support directly

1721
for airport and air traffic control developments. It can also encourage such developments on the part of member states. It is worth observing that the stance of the Commission on these matters has been substantially supported by the European Parliament.
In addition to the specific points I have mentioned I further criticise the report for failing to address the impediments to progress such as the scope for delay and the obstruction on the part of member states despite the resolution of the transport council in June 1989. That resolution failed to suggest the need for and the ways towards effective monitoring of its recommendations.
The report calls for better co-ordination of the existing institutions but it does not help in indicating how that might be accomplished. Indeed, I believe it has the reverse effect. It takes too pessimistic a line towards the creation of what it clearly wants to see set up—a single new multilateral organisation. It ignores the force of public opinion in accelerating the pace for institutional and other reforms. We have seen that in the environment field and I believe that we shall see it also in this field. In addition, it tends to support those who call for no role or a very limited one for the Commission. At least it concedes observer status in Eurocontrol, but that is to ignore the importance of full membership in achieving the very goals which have been supported by the committee. It also ignores precedents. The Community has used very effectively its membership of United Nations agencies to stimulate progress in the maritime safety and environmental fields in the International Maritime Organisation and in the United Nations Environment Programme.
In over-emphasising the value of the work of technicians as against generalists—and I consider that there is a place for both—I believe that the committee has made a mistake. The technicians have sometimes tended to engage in empire building. I believe that we have to be very careful to ensure that there is a useful balance between both.
Of course, I agree that technical competence does need to be built up. So far as concerns the Commission, that will require additional budgetary resources. I also believe that the committee is wrong in asserting that Community finance to develop infrastructure should come from existing structural funds. That is to take far too limited a view of the matter. What happens, for example, in areas which are not eligible for the use of existing structural funds?
I turn, albeit briefly, to the report on civil aviation and 1992. I agree with the committee that deferral by the council of major decisions, which are to remain simply as objectives for 1992, is grotesquely unsatisfactory having regard to the commitments made by heads of state and government back in 1986 and again in 1987. For the council to wait beyond 1992, as I think will happen, provides opportunities for those who are hostile to progress to engage in all sorts of subterfuge.
1722
On the question of the development of oligopoly we need to give very careful attention to what has happened in the United States. Most recently the United States experience has been unhelpful for the consumer: in Act I, some 12 years ago, there were dozens of new airlines challenging the giants; Act II led to merger mania; in Act III, debt-burdened airlines, such as Eastern, TWA and Midway, are now candidates for merger or failure. It is a question of the survival of the fittest, the fattest, the meanest and the strongest. That is not good for consumers and we need to be on our guard for there is a real risk that we face the same problems. There are those who say that only the strong will be able to compete with the few huge United States and Far Eastern carriers. They are not wholly wrong.
There are others who express doubts about the Commission having the powers to control or eliminate collusion, cartels and predatory practices on the part of the dominant few. Proper questions are asked about the inadequacies of the merger regulation, a point eloquently argued in paragraph 86. However, this Government were anxious to control the limits of the merger regulation itself. Then there are questions about the computerised reservation systems. I do not believe that anyone has the right answer to these problems yet, except, perhaps, the CAA is pointing in the right direction. It is a pity that the committee has not given adequate attention to the views of the Civil Aviation Authority in that regard.
Nor have we been able to achieve any clear or coherent ideas about the questions of slots and airport access, which are critical if we are to achieve fairer competition. Unquestionably, the incumbents are unduly favoured by the present system, which is explained very fully in the report. I do not believe that airlines ought to expect to continue to have those cosy arrangements among themselves. There needs to be more transparency. There needs to be much more control, perhaps by the national authorities, such as the CAA, or perhaps by the Commission. Frankly, I am uncertain about the right solutions in this regard and, like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am not sure that the Commission has come forward with the right proposals on this subject. However, I do not believe that grandfathering or slot auctions will be the correct answers. They will only help the big boys.
I believe that the question of consumer representation is also tremendously important. Consumers need a share in the determination of matters relating to slots and computerised reservation systems. However, I must say that the Consumers' Association has not helped its case with the evidence that they have given to the committee. If they could see a top, they could not resist going over it. Some of their criticisms are ill-founded and unduly pejorative. Having said that, I believe that we must not forget the role of the consumer in relation to these issues.
On the question of fifth freedom services I very much agree with the opinion of the committee. However, we should recall that when the crunch came in 1986 and 1987 and the question of giving fifth freedom rights to some of the smaller, peripheral

1723
countries was raised in the Council of Ministers, the great liberalisers were found wanting. Britain and Holland, who had argued impressively for greater liberalisation—and I very much agreed with most of the arguments that they adduced—did not like the idea of introducing fifth freedom rights to Aer Lingus and TAP. However, it has to come and I hope that we shall make significant progress in that regard.
I am sorry that I have exceeded the usual speaking time, but there has been a lot of ground to cover. My penultimate point is that criticism has been made about the roles of Directorate-General IV and Directorate-General VII—competition and transport respectively. The word used by the committee in its report is "dismay" that those directorates-general are working on separate proposals. The committee finds that totally unacceptable.
I direct the attention of the House to some very pertinent remarks made by Mr. Argyris of Directorate-General IV reported on page 87 in paragraph 297. He said, in relation to the computerised reservation system:
"The proposal from…DG VII is a proposal which would be for a regulation to be adopted by the Council, and its content is a separate matter. It would be a proposal to the Council for a Council regulation. The Commission's proposal from DG IV will be a proposal for a Commission regulation to be adopted by around the end of the year by the Commission after engaging in consultations".
There were two different approaches. Yet the directorates-general are able to work together. But there is a constructive tension, it is perfectly true. Does that not apply in Whitehall occasionally? Indeed, we saw an example only this weekend. I believe that the kind of relationship that I had with Commissioner Sutherland, which led to fierce arguments from time to time, was an example of such a constructive relationship. The roles of DG IV and DG VII are, to some extent, different. That is a point which the committee has not taken on board.
I conclude by saying that during my time in the Commission, and the same is true today, the Commission has never striven for a free-for-all in civil aviation. It has never striven for complete deregulation but rather has adopted an approach which is based on creating order in the market place with greater opportunities for competitive enterprise, for fairer competition and for efficiency. I believe that those ideas have been largely supported, notwithstanding some criticism, by the committee. I conclude by once again congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his colleagues on a very comprehensive and well argued report and for enabling us to debate the issues today.
5 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to join those noble Lords who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on his excellent report. It is a true and exhaustive contribution to the long-standing debate on civil aviation policy and the controversy over the high cost of European air travel. As one who has taken some interest in this question in recent years, I
1724
should like to pay tribute to both the Commission in Brussels and the British Government for being the twin pillars of any progress that has been made.
One sometimes forgets how dire was the situation 10 years ago. At that time there was hardly any competition in European air travel permitted between European airlines. There was the famous prohibition on an excessive number of prawns in a prawn cocktail, and rules about whether a piece of tomato could be placed on a piece of lettuce. It was forbidden to provide extra leg room in aircraft, and baggage restrictions were carefully enforced. Much of that nonsense has been removed.
Indeed, in the wake of the 1987 package in which the two former Commissioners present in this House (one of whom has now left the Chamber) played a very important part there has been the possibility of true progress toward a more liberal European air regime. The conditions are there—or if not, they could be and soon will be—in which imaginative, enterprising airlines could move in and provide a better and cheaper product for the European consumer. In other words, the horse has been led to the water. However, I am not yet sure whether he is ready to drink. The conditions have been created, but an industry still remains which consists largely of sharks and minnows. I was about to say Davids and Goliaths, but in that respect a parallel is not perhaps exact since David killed Goliath.
However, the competition between the very large European airlines, including our own British Airways, and the small airlines which are allowed to pick up the crumbs is not necessarily in the consumers' best interest. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the series of non-aggression pacts made, tacitly or not, between a fair number of traditional European carriers. There are probably more than we know about. Certainly, looking at any airline's timetable one finds very little variation in the fare charged from A to B or from B to A between those (usually the two flag carrying airlines) that operate the route. If there is any variation, it is the exception rather than the rule. Somehow they manage to charge the same fare.
I do not say that that is done by secret discussion and agreement in cartel as used to be the case. Maybe it is a question of water finding its own level. Still, there is little variation, little price differentiation and little scope for the consumer to shop around in the way that he or she might prefer to go to Safeway or Tesco in order get the best bargain.
There are a few exceptions, most of them brought about, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, by bilateral arrangements rather than by implementation of the Treaty of Rome. Bilateral arrangements exist between this country and the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, and there is some flexibility with France and Germany. As a result a large number of carriers now operate between London and Amsterdam, some flying from Heathrow and some from Gatwick. For instance, it is possible at British Midland to obtain an off-peak return flight from London to Amsterdam for £116 or a three-day excursion return for £159. That is a lot cheaper than

1725
the ordinary unrestricted fare of £194 return and much cheaper than the fares between London and Brussels which are now in the region of £210. That is a route which is shorter than London-Amsterdam.
I often ask myself why London-Brussels is a more expensive route than London-Amsterdam. I have to conclude that because there is more competition on the London-Amsterdam route, the fares are more competitive. There is some competition on the London-Brussels route now. There is Air Europe, although it operates out of Gatwick and is not always the most convenient way to go to Brussels. However, Air Europe has made some inroads. I suggest that flights between this country and Ireland have been totally revolutionised by the emergence of Ryanair, both in the creation of new airports and new traffic, and in the provision of better and cheaper services for the traveller. The product has been made both better and cheaper as a result of the emergence of one enterprising, brave airline on routes between the two countries.
That shows that it can be done. But it is not easy, given the power of airlines such as British Airways which, in spite of all the reforms, controls more than 90 per cent. of British scheduled air traffic to Europe. Under those conditions it is very difficult for a smaller airline to come in on a route and make a profit. Usually it can be seen off with some dispatch by the noble Lord, Lord King, and his employees.
I want to concentrate on a subject mentioned by previous speakers; namely, take-off and landing slots. It is fair to say that that is one area which has not been seriously tackled by those who are trying to create fairer competition. It has been pointed out that the situation still remains whereby an airline that has had previous facilities at the overcrowded airports (such as Heathrow and Gatwick in this country, and Munich, Frankfurt, Milan and popular airports on the Continent) enjoys the privilege known as "grandfather rights". That means that as the incumbent airline, it gets first call on any slot which has been available to it during the previous six months. I fail to see why that practice should be allowed to continue. I see no justice in it. Why should some airline have a valuable privilege worth a considerable sum of money passed down to itself every six months in perpetuity so that it can steal a march on a new airline which might be willing to charge a cheaper fare if only it could obtain the take-off and landing slots?
British Midland is a company that is very heavily penalised by the present situation. If noble Lords wish to fly tomorrow from London to Paris by British Midland they will find that there are flights at 6.45 a.m. and 7.45 a.m., and the next flight available is at 11.25 a.m. The peak hours of the morning—when business people wish to fly from London to Paris in large numbers—are not available to British Midland because they are all bequeathed (I believe that would be the right word) to Air France and British Airways. This puts the new interloper airline, British Midland, at a considerable commercial disadvantage.
1726
Why does that happen? We are told by the Government—and it is in the report—that the system is enshrined in the rules of the International Air Transport Association. Why should IATA have the final say in the matter? Why should we bow down in our obedience to the IATA organisation? Some of us feel that it has no right to be seriously interfering in such matters. Indeed, many feel that its existence should be called into question. I understand that that is happening in the United States. Some people across the Atlantic in the Department of Commerce believe that anti-trust legislation should be taken against IATA to remove it from the United States. I shall be interested to know whether the British Government believe that it is right to renew the block exemption on competition rules which may be renewed in order to allow IATA to continue to function in European Community countries. I am coming to the view that that body has been sitting in Geneva for too long for any good that it has done and that perhaps it should go. However, it should certainly persist in its imposition of the principle of grandfather rights over the allocation of slots.
I hope that I did not misunderstand the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he stated that the present system of allocating slots should be maintained. As I understood him, he was in favour of reform of the present system. He mentioned the proposals which I believe have now been tabled by the Commission in Brussels. If implemented, they will give new airlines priority on new slots that may be created. If no new slots are created, they will oblige the older airlines to relinquish some of the slots that they have inherited. That would be a substantial, and I believe excellent, reform although it would be maintaining the old system. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Government will support it. I shall be interested to know whether they have a view on what the Commission is about to put forward.
With great respect, I felt that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was a little harsh on the Commission. After all, if it were not for the Commission, I doubt whether we would have taken some of the modest steps that have been taken towards a better deal for the air traveller in Europe. They have been very much at the forefront of the struggle for a more liberal air policy in Europe. Commissioners such as the two noble Lords who have taken part in the present debate, and Mr. Sutherland, have been pre-eminent in the fight, as have Her Majesty's Government, as I suggested earlier. However, it will not be easy for the Commission to implement the rules about the allocation of slots unless we have steadfast pressure in support of them from British Ministers. I very much hope that I can be assured that this pressure will be maintained when those proposals are tabled.
Such proposals are our only hope. Airlines must have the ability to take off and land, otherwise they cannot offer the best fares and facilities which I believe they could offer if only there were free competition in Europe. The aim of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd is to create free

1727
competition to create the conditions in air travel that we hope to achieve as a result of the free internal market in 1992, and to benefit the consumer.
I therefore trust that the Commission, as guardians of the Treaty of Rome—which has been referred to by the Prime Minister as a charter for economic liberty —will see fit to interpret that aim with regard to the airline sector to the benefit of the European air traveller.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the opportunity to discuss the subject. I felt that another member of his committee, should speak in the debate. However, having put my name down and observed that no other member of the committee had, I looked into the subject and then realised why.
The two inquiries took place some time ago. We had the first evidence on traffic management and air traffic control last November. The larger report, A free market by 1992? was published in March or April of this year. It therefore required some mugging-up on the subject. I shall not keep noble Lords too long today. The Minister has been asked relevant questions and we all look forward to hearing his answers.
I speak today if only to draw attention to the absolutely vital importance of air transport in Europe to the trade of Europe. We know that the Single European Act will take effect by the end of 1992 and the beginning of 1993. The recommendations of the Commission are timed to coincide with that. Ease of transportation and of travelling through Europe is of similar importance to telecommunications. Air communications is one of the infrastructures that is absolutely vital for a healthy two-way trade between nations.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that his influence on the liberalisation of air transport will be much welcomed. There have been discussions today about the roles of the great national governments and of the Commission and how the right motivation can influence the protectionist monopolist structures of the European aviation industry. I am sure in my own mind that double disapproval, and the competition that it creates, is one such motivation. It does not force lower fares but it creates the opportunity for them. I hope that pressure will be brought so that that system can be introduced by other countries.
The existence of national airlines is another restriction. The sovereignty of the countries is reflected through their airlines. It would be difficult to impose privatisation on Europe's national airlines. However, the experience of British Airways has made it profitable and it has never been more healthy or active.
The future of air transport in Europe is constantly evolving. The technologies, thank goodness, are always improving. As regards air traffic management, communications are becoming ever better. Eurocontrol is in the process of making communication systems common throughout Europe. Of course, the European field is likely to become wider, with the
1728
additional traffic that will come from Eastern Europe. There has been an enormous advance in the speed of aeroplanes and the loads that they carry, and that advance will continue. I am sure that the problem of slots will be eased by further improvements in speed and carrying capacity.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Shepherd for introducing the two excellent reports. Whether or not we agree with all the committee's decisions and findings, noble Lords will agree that they are two first-class reports. I echo my noble friend's appreciation for the many witnesses who gave oral evidence and for the useful memoranda which will hold all noble Lords in good stead for the future. I was particularly interested in the many questions that my noble friend directed to the Minister. I hope that he will be in a position to reply.
Although there is a link between the two reports, I propose to deal with them separately. My intention is not to roam over the general aviation field but to pick up what are important passages from various paragraphs of the report and, where necessary, comment upon them. I too am pleased that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has taken part in the debate. He gave the House valuable information from his knowledge as a Commissioner in Europe responsible for many transport issues. That will be extremely helpful.
Paragraph 8 of the report reminds us that in 1989 the Council of Transport Ministers adopted the resolution on the need for improved co-operation on air traffic control. Although that was a unanimous decision, it was non-binding. As is stated in paragraph 6, the Commission called on member states to become members of Eurocontrol. I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Shepherd that the decision should have been legally binding. Will the Minister say what efforts are being made to ensure that in future it is made legally binding?
Part II sums up the evidence given on the possible role of the Commission. After reading the report I share the anxiety expressed by many witnesses about the plethora of organisations involved in some way or another in air traffic control in Europe. Although details of the composition of several organisations are given in the report, there is little indication of exactly how they function and the work that they undertake as regards air traffic control. Various organisations which submitted evidence put forward the view that the intervention of the Commission would further duplicate matters. However, the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities would support Commission activity in order to harmonise, coordinate and implement the work of other bodies upon which it argued that no other body was taking speedy and effective action.
Some witnesses suggested that Eurocontrol had not been allowed to develop as intended for nationalistic reasons. There is a tendency by some states to want to go it alone. If that is the position, surely the Commission should step in to tackle the situation. The

1729
International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations put forward the view that the fragmented nature of air traffic control facilities and the growth in control deficiencies arose because aviation traffic had increased much faster than capacity. That increase was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
In its memorandum National Air Traffic Services held that the Commission had overlooked the fact that it had no technical knowledge of air traffic control, whereas the Eurocontrol staff were of good quality, with sound experience. I failed to find any reference in the report to the fact that the Commission's proposals are that it should play a positive part in air traffic control. I may have read the report too quickly or missed something but I did not gather that to be its intention.
As stated in paragraph 32, some witnesses pointed to the shortage of controllers as a contributory factor in air traffic control problems. I appreciate the further view expressed by NATS that the many existing organisations which are mentioned as taking some part in air traffic control take a significant amount of the valuable staff resources. The resources of experienced people should be deployed to areas where they can do the most good. We must consider how that position can be alleviated so that we may make the best use of the efficient staff members who are available in the various units of air traffic control.
I note the point made in paragraph 34, and it was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is the significant factor that the issue will affect European countries which are not members of the Community. Paragraph 38 makes the point that individual states should recognise that air traffic control is a matter for the whole Continent of Europe and not only for the Community. How will that be achieved other than by an effective Eurocontrol organisation? I cannot see how it can be achieved other than by a Eurocontrol organisation that is effective, efficient and adequate.
The view of the committee is that there is a sound case for the involvement of the Commission in Eurocontrol, but that does not require full membership. However, it must be agreed that the Commission can ensure not only that member states take a part in Eurocontrol but that they do so effectively by providing adequate control staff who have intensive training and up-to-date equipment, using Community funds where appropriate.
The report also mentioned flow management, a subject to which no noble Lord has yet referred. It was first referred to in paragraph 16 as being the development to manage the flow of air traffic throughout Western Europe from 1993. Paragraph 28 sets out a very useful explanation of the difference between air traffic control and management. I believe that it is worthy of quotation:
"Control was designed to prevent collisions and would be exercised by each controller to deal with every aircraft in the airspace under his control, however congested that became.
1730
Flow management was exercised to organise the traffic flow so that no controller was overloaded with more aircraft than he could safely handle".
That is a very useful, simple explanation of the difference.
Some witnesses put forward a proposal for a central flow control unit under Eurocontrol. However, I support the view expressed by the committee as set out at paragraph 43 that flow management is a short term measure which will not address the long term problem of capacity. I share also the opinion of the committee that the Council should now turn its attention to those very urgent matters and maintain a sense of urgency created by recent crises in air traffic management. Can that best be achieved by giving to the Commission full membership of Eurocontrol or observer status only? In my view the committee's argument which supports observer status only is not fully convincing. It will be interesting to know the view of the Minister on that issue.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quoted from the other document on civil aviation because that had been my intention. I considered it very important in showing what is desired of the single market in 1992 as regards aviation and also the cosy cartel situation which exists today.
The Department of Transport in a supplementary memorandum states:
"The task now is to ensure that interim arrangements are as liberal as possible in the three crucial areas (fares, market access and capacity constraints)".
At paragraph 84 the committee observes that the zeal for greater liberalisation is not shared by some other member states of the Community. If that is the case, what is to be done? What action will the Government take to ensure that that position does not continue? That seems to be a matter for consideration by the Commission and also by the Council of Transport Ministers.
To most people, talk of liberalisation of aviation means some movement towards lower fares. From the evidence in the report, there would appear to be general approval of the proposal for a double disapproval regime for fares. I believe that the Community can play a great part in that, but adequate competition may be the key, especially in view of the fact that there are airlines outside the Community—a point stressed by one or two noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I repeat it.
I ask one question. If we are to move towards lower fares, what sort of regulatory system can there be? A regulatory system may be possible with those airlines attached to member states. But what about those airlines outside the Community? What attention are the Commission and the Council of Transport Ministers giving to that matter?
We must keep in mind also that liberalisation could bring something which may not be helpful to us; that is, encouragement to use smaller planes and the duplication of route services with increased congestion at airports and in the air. Therefore, when we speak of open access for all airlines, those particular points must be borne in mind.

1731
The point is made at paragraph 20 that competition for new entrants depends on physical access to airports and airways. Paragraph 23 emphasises that most witnesses saw proposals on market access as crucial to the development of competition. One questions how small carriers can compete if they cannot obtain permission to operate the services they want and are unable to secure access to airports became of congestion. That is an issue about which one cannot be airy-fairy. It must depend upon the national position regarding agreements. I do not believe that it can be said that any airline must be permitted to fly anywhere and land at any airport. That would be an impossible situation; yet that viewpoint has been advanced.
Section 5 of the CAA memo deals with the lessons of the United States in the move towards liberalisation. That is dealt with also at paragraphs 61 to 63 of the report. I should like to emphasise what is in those paragraphs to which reference has been made by other noble Lords. It is emphasised that mega-airlines now dominate the United States' industry more than they did before deregulation. New entrants is came in to provide competition but with few exceptions failed to survive. It is said that the entry of new or substantially new airlines in the United States has now dried up. At paragraph 62 the Civil Aviation Authority argues that what went wrong in the United States was that deregulation akin to laissez faire replaced regulation.
I make the declaration—and it may not please all noble Lords—that looking at the lessons of the United States, it is clear that there must be some degree of regulation. It cannot be possible to allow any airline to decide to land at any airport where there may be congestion and where it may be impossible to take in further routes.
On the question of mergers, a number of paragraphs are headed "The Threat of Oligopoly". In paragraph 86 the committee suggests that larger and stronger European carriers may be necessary to compete internationally with the giants which dominate the American and Far Eastern markets. My noble friend Lord Shepherd made some reference to the question of how that will affect consumers for whom we desire the liberalisation.
Paragraph 17 questions whether market forces will lead to the domination by a small number of mega-carriers and what may be needed to protect the interests of consumers. The tendency towards mergers is dealt with in detail in the 14 pages of evidence of Mr. John Loder, the aviation consultant, which I found of considerable interest.
The CAA memo at paragraph 17.2 states that there are now agreements between already dominant airlines in five EC countries, including three of the largest carriers. It goes on to comment that regional airlines are becoming increasingly dominated or even swallowed up by their larger brethren, as has happened in the United States.
Again, I may have missed matters in the report but I can see nothing in the Commission's conclusions as
1732
to how to deal with the question of mergers, some of which could be contrary to the interests of consumers. I do not know whether the Minister can say what action the Government propose to take on the question of monitoring and control of mergers. They will inevitably occur, as we saw only this week with Pan Am in the United States. We already know of the activities of British Airways in making overtures, and in some cases completing mergers or agreements with other bodies.
That leads me on to the question of slots, to which a number of noble Lords referred. In paragraph 94 the committee questions whether, if there are to be new entrants wishing to compete, the present system of slot allocation gives them a fair chance. I note that that matter was dealt with by some very probing questions from members of the committee on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the evidence.
Paragraphs 27 to 32 deal with the important question of who obtains the slots. It is recognised that the grandfather allocation, to which some noble Lords referred, is dealt with through the scheduling committee system and is extensively applied. I noted that in paragraph 96 the committee conclude that there is as yet no obvious alternative to the present system of slot allocation. It would seem that the committee is opposed to a pricing system or auction of slots.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd asked some questions in that regard. In response to noble Lords who said that we must tackle the question of the allocation of slots, I ask how it is to be done. Has anyone suggested how it should be done? Will it be left to the CAA to become the regulatory organisation dealing with the allocation of slots? How is it to be done? The last thing we want to see is an auctioning of slots with possible increases in costs to the consumer. Therefore I say again that airy-fairy talk is not the answer to the problem of allocation of slots. We may not like it. We may feel that the grandfather system must be tackled. But how is that to be done? Do the Government have a definite view on the matter? Should we ask the CAA to give its viewpoint?
The opinions of the committee are set out in Part 3 of the report. One could speak for a long time if one attempted to deal with the 32 paragraphs of that section. It is clearly recognised by the committee that there are matters beyond the competence of the Commission to determine. That would appear to be the tone of the general conclusion in paragraph 116 of the report. That view applies to the question of external policy. Although that is referred to in paragraphs 78, 79 and 80, in paragraph 113 the committee makes clear that it decided not to comment on the proposal that the Commission should negotiate agreements with third world countries on behalf of EC member states. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the giving of that power to the Commission would be disastrous.
The committee decided to deal with the matter in due course in view of what it referred to as the complex matter of policy and law which the proposal raises. My noble friend Lord Shepherd said that the

1733
committee would consider that matter in the new year. That is encouraging. I should like to know the Government's view on the matter. The question of negotiation with third world countries is an important matter and one that we cannot leave to the Commission to handle.
I conclude by saying that this has been a useful debate by noble Lords who know a great deal about the aircraft industry. I congratulate the members of the committee on their report, and I thank my noble friend Lord Shepherd for introducing it in the way that he did.
5.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government welcome these two reports by the Select Committee on the European Communities. While they cover separately the important issues of European liberalisation and air traffic control, their subject matters are obviously interrelated, as the full benefits of liberalisation will only come about with improved air traffic control facilities. I warmly commend your Lordships' hard work, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on introducing the two reports. I am also grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to answer this afternoon. It is the first occasion on which I have had to speak on these matters since returning to my responsibilities in the Department of Transport.
On the European front, the Government's clear aim is that civil aviation in the Community should be liberalised. With increased competition between airlines, consumers will benefit through a greater choice of services and fares offered in response to consumer demand. Unnecessary restrictions must be removed, without prejudicing safety, and without exposing consumers or airlines to exploitative practices or unfair competition.
We are making progress. On 18th June the Council of Ministers agreed a second package of aviation liberalisation measures. In the Government's view, the most important aspect of the agreement was the commitment in Community law to complete the final stage of introducing a single market in aviation by the beginning of 1993. That commitment consists of the introduction of uniform licensing criteria by July 1992, and of double disapproval for fares and the abolition of bilateral capacity sharing by the end of 1992. That is of course subject to safeguards against exploitative and anti-competitive behaviour.
The second package agreed in June, which comes into effect on 1st November, builds on the first set of measures agreed in 1987. It contains arrangements for setting fares which introduce an element of double disapproval and simplify the existing zonal system. The package also eases access to the market by opening up routes between virtually all EC airports, relaxing restrictions on fifth freedom services within the Community—which I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the United Kingdom fully welcomes
1734
—and progressively lowering the thresholds above which multiple designation of airlines on a particular route is allowed.
The Government's attention is now focused on the vitally important final stage. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, we fully support the system of double disapproval for fares, which will replace the double approval system under which the approval of both authorities at either end of the route has been required before a new fare could be introduced. The new system will remove the present impediment to introducing cheaper fares, and allow freedom to airlines to respond to the market.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked the Government to urge the Commission to study the benefits of the existing double disapproval system between, for example, the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, gave some good examples of what we achieved by that bilateral agreement, which I had the pleasure of signing with the Dublin Government a couple of years ago. There have been substantial cuts in fares. On-demand fares are available at approximately 20 per cent. below their 1987 prices in real terms. The number of airlines serving London and Dublin has increased from three to five, and the number of routes flown between the United Kingdom and Ireland has increased from 26 to 34. Those are the benefits which may be seen by all. I assure noble Lords that we shall continue to preach those benefits to those who still need persuading of the benefits of liberalisation. I would add, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that we even gave additional fifth freedom rights on that particular package.
The Government believe that fare setting must be accompanied by proper safeguards to ensure that fares are neither excessive nor predatory. We have already laid some of the ground in the context of the second package, but we shall be seeking to build on and adapt that to meet the circumstances which will be created with the full introduction of the single market. We shall examine the suggestion of the committee to allow wider representation to the Commission on fare levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about the Commission's proposal to tackle anti-competitive practices. Other noble Lords also mentioned that point. The Government regard it as essential that liberalisation is accompanied by proper safeguards against carriers who abuse or threaten to abuse their position in the market through predatory behaviour. We welcome the commitment made by the council in June to apply a suitable mechanism to stop carriers before their predatory activities can do any damage, which can happen very quickly. With UK support, the presidency is working for a formal adoption of such a "cease and desist" mechanism at the December transport council meeting. I hope that clarifies the position.
The Government can see no reason for the continuation of constraints on market access within

1735
the Community, and welcome the fact that bilateral capacity limits will be removed entirely from the final stage. A true single market in aviation should allow equality of opportunity for airlines of all member states. The Government therefore also warmly welcome the commitment to uniform licensing criteria by 1st July 1992. This means that member states will be obliged to apply uniform criteria in deciding whether to grant an operating licence to an airline established in any member state. The details remain to be worked out, but the important goal is to do away with the ability of member states to favour their flag carriers and discriminate against other airlines.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about the compatibility of cabotage with the Chicago Convention. I am bound to say that this an extremely complicated issue. We, like the Commission, do not think that the exercise of cabotage is contrary to Article 7 of the Chicago convention, because any cabotage rights granted within the Community would not infringe the rights of third countries. Under such circumstances, third countries might apply for cabotage rights, which would then become a matter for negotiation.
The Government are also aware that competition cannot be fair while some airlines are protected from the full discipline of the market. They will continue to urge that provisions in EC legislation covering state aids should be strictly enforced.
The Government will continue to play a leading role in discussions in Brussels on the final stage of liberalisation with the aim of introducing a single market in aviation in which a multi-airline industry can flourish to the benefit of consumers and the economy.
The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, and Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Bethell, drew attention to the report's discussion of slot allocation. This is a complex issue, as I think is agreed, with wide ramifications and no easy solutions, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out. The Commission has expressed some ideas for change, and a proposal for council discussion is awaited. This is an important issue and the council must decide on policy after full debate. Our concern is shared by other member states as well as by the aviation industry. What we seek is a system that can generate fair and vigorous competition, and reward efficiency and innovation, without sacrificing the flexibility and practicability of the existing arrangements.
We are concerned to ensure that it is indeed the council which decides what changes may be appropriate, and that the Commission should not unilaterally develop policy without council approval. There are clear signs that the Commission intends to introduce a new slot allocation policy unilaterally as part of the removal of a group exemption from the Treaty's competition rules. My noble friend Lord Bethell referred to that. That would be done without decision by the Council. At the same time, the Commission is preparing a proposal for a code of conduct on slot allocation. This would be decided on by the council. I can tell your Lordships that we are
1736
not prepared to see scope for council debate on the proposed code of conduct limited by any pre-emptive measures taken unilaterally by the Commission. The UK will be raising this important point at the council meeting in Luxembourg tomorrow. I would say to my noble friend Lord Bethell that we have received representations from airlines such as British Midland who fear that if these proposals are followed through it could result in that airline losing slots as well as some of the larger airlines.
Noble Lords have commented that, in collaboration with the CAA, the Government have recently Commissioned their own consultants' report on possible new ways of allocating slots among airlines at congested airports. The consultants are working to a tight time schedule, with Stage 1 of the study due to be completed at the end of November. Stage 1 will identify alternative methods of slot allocation that appear to merit more detailed study in Stage 2. Assuming Stage 2 goes ahead, it will be completed by the early Spring of next year.
We hope that the consultants' work will help to inform the debate in the council. The consultants have been asked to report on arrangements for slot allocation within the EC which would be compatible with the system based on the IATA procedures which are applied on a world-wide basis. Even at congested airports the current slot allocation system can work flexibly. I can give two examples. My noble friend Lord Bethell has already referred to British Midland. British Midland had 3 per cent. of the slots at Heathrow in 1979. It now has 12 per cent. Air Europe has increased its slots dramatically at Gatwick, from just 3 per cent. four years ago to more than 21 per cent. now; so one can say that the existing system can work reasonably effectively.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently visited the chairman of the Heathrow scheduling committee. He was most impressed by the scheduling operation and was satisfied that the airport co-ordinator and his team carry out their tasks without discrimination. However, it would be fair to say that the UK is ahead of most, if not all, other countries in the transparency and quantity of scheduling information available to user airlines. For example, I understand that the Heathrow scheduling committee is currently considering moving from the British Airways building to offices owned by BAA, further to reinforce its already apparent independence. Incidentally, I am not aware of any cases where airlines have used an aircraft with an excessive passenger capacity merely to retain control over a slot. In that context the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the United Airlines' purchase of the Pan American routes to London. He apologised for not having given me notice of his question. However, I can assure him that no notice was necessary. Since this announcement, which came to us as a complete surprise last Wednesday morning, we have thought of little else. It raises some important

1737
issues. We were not consulted before the announcement was made and we understand that approval for the purchase has not yet been obtained from the United States Government.
Any proposals for United Airlines to operate flights from the United States to London would need to be considered in the light of the Bermuda 2 agreement governing air services between the two countries and the traffic distribution rules for airports serving the London area. The current TDRs would not permit United Airlines to operate flights to and from Heathrow. Clearly, I cannot speculate now on the outcome of any discussions between the US and the UK which might be held under Bermuda 2; but, as I believe I mentioned a moment ago, the traffic distribution rules are already under review by the Civil Aviation Authority at my request, and the authority will be submitting advice to the Secretary of State early next year. At this stage I cannot predict the outcome of that.
The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Underhill, asked whether the powers in the new merger control regulation are adequate and how many mergers in the aviation sector it would apply to. The regulation gives significant new powers to the European Commission: indeed, it seems appropriate that larger mergers should be considered on a Europe-wide basis, since the companies concerned are so often international. Where a merger is not a concentration but rather a joint venture, the Commission will still have powers to investigate. Under the regulation, mergers will be judged on strict competition criteria.
I emphasise that the merger control regulation leaves the UK authorities with a significant role in this sphere. UK merger law, with the central role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, gives substantial powers in respect of mergers. The Government believe that appropriate powers are available for the various circumstances which arise. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will appreciate that I cannot foresee how many aviation cases are likely to arise which may be caught by the new mergers regulation and he will understand why it would not be appropriate for me to speculate in this area.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the Commission's proposals on external competence and arranging air service agreements with countries outside Europe. The Government believe that it is premature for the Commission to seek exclusive competence in external aviation relations, at least before the conclusion of the single market. The proposal has extremely grave complications which I believe would become obvious if they were to be discussed.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also asked about the imposition of VAT on air fares. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I cannot give the Government's views on the proposal at this very early stage. I can assure my noble friend that we have taken account of his views.
1738
I now turn to the Select Committee's report on air traffic control. The Government welcome this well-balanced and thorough survey of the European situation, and we are in agreement with many of the committee's opinions. Again, I am most grateful for your Lordships' hard work. And I am glad to have the opportunity to update the House on recent initiatives in this area, which I trust your Lordships will agree are in line with the thinking underlying the report. There have been significant developments since the European Commission submitted its proposals nearly two years ago.
I am delighted to see that since 1988 two additional countries have joined Eurocontrol, making a total of 11 full members. A further seven states have either applied to join or indicated that they intend to join Eurocontrol. They are all at the moment actively participating in its meetings as observers.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether, as all members of the Community have joined Eurocontrol, except at this stage Italy, Spain and Denmark, all member states would be required to join. Italy and Spain have already applied and Denmark is considering the position. I hope that before very long all members of the Community will become full members of Eurocontrol. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, we want more than just the members of the EC to join. That is why we are pleased that there are other European countries outside the Community which are also members.
I was pleased that the committee noted the importance of establishing a central flow management unit for Europe under the auspices of Eurocontrol. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to that. As many noble Lords will recall, the Government put forward this proposal and played a leading role in getting it endorsed. At that time I was President of Eurocontrol's permanent Commission, and was heavily involved in this work. The unit is to be operated by Eurocontrol in Brussels, and is being progressively introduced, with full implementation in October 1993. It will increasingly ensure that air traffic in Western Europe is managed in the most efficient and safe manner, with the least delay to traffic and the maximum utilisation of all available system capacity.
However, perhaps the most important development for many years was the unanimous agreement on 24th April last by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and 22 other transport Ministers from Western Europe of an action programme to increase capacity in Europe. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter emphasised the need for air traffic control in Europe to be co-ordinated on a pan-European basis rather than just within the European Community. As I have said, the Government strongly support that view. This programme, which again was the result of a UK initiative, will integrate air traffic control systems throughout Western Europe, thus facilitating the flow of traffic from area to area, and will optimise the air traffic route network. The effect should be an increase in capacity over the coming years, with great benefits to passengers through a reduction in congestion and delays.

1739
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked how Ministers will ensure that this programme is implemented. The directors general of civil aviation for each of the participating states will of course be monitoring the implementation of the programme. Transport Ministers of the participating states have agreed to meet again next autumn to review progress and consider whether acceleration of the programme's implementation is a possibility.
This programme of integration is being managed by Eurocontrol. The Government are in full agreement with the committee's opinion that Eurocontrol should be strengthened; it is the organisation best placed, in terms of membership and expertise, to handle matters on European air traffic control, and its key role in the integration programme is evidence of this. But as well as enhancing the role of Eurocontrol this programme will also assist coordination throughout Europe. We have seen this to be the case in the agreement between the 23 participating states of the European Civil Aviation Conference, but in addition Eurocontol, the European Commission, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, NATO and several organisations representing airspace users have all been represented at meetings to plan the implementation of the programme. Congestion is a European problem, and the problem cannot be resolved in isolation. We do indeed take seriously the need for co-ordination, especially where long-term planning is concerned.
The committee considers that decisions taken by bodies such as Eurocontrol or ECAC should be made legally binding within Community law, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked this afternoon that this might be applied to the programme agreed by the ECAC member states in April. I do not know of any proposals within the Community to take such action, and I have to say that I do not think that it would be necessary. The ECAC agreement revealed a sense of common purpose and commitment among the participating states. The will to implement the programme is there, which surely makes legislation unnecessary.
In addition, work is being undertaken in parallel with the integration programme to examine the interface between airports and air traffic control, concentrating on terminal areas and the main airports. The working group concerned, in which the UK is playing a leading part, is looking for ways to increase capacity and eliminate the bottlenecks which cause so much congestion. The group's findings will be presented to ECAC transport Ministers next autumn.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about use of Community funds for infrastructure funding. There is only one significant area where the Government beg to differ from your Lordships' committee, and that is the suggestion that the EC infrastructure funding should be used to overcome problems in those member states whose air traffic control systems do not yet meet the highest standards.
Clearly, there is a need for high standards and compatibility to handle the growing air traffic in
1740
Europe. However, Eurocontrol has recently taken out loans with the European Investment Bank in order to fund the development of new systems, recovery of the financing costs being made through the established en-route charging system; the charges being paid by airlines—that is to say, by those who actually use the air traffic control system. I submit to your Lordships that this is the right way forward to bring in the necessary infrastructure improvements. I suggest that there is no reason why taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise the buoyant aviation industry.
Turning to the part being played by the UK itself in increasing capacity, I am pleased to be able to inform the House of the strenuous efforts being made by the Civil Aviation Authority to provide the equipment, facilities and systems which will enable the increasing volume of traffic to be handled. The CAA has embarked on a £750 million investment programme, its largest and most ambitious ever. Already this year a new computer system has been installed at the London air traffic control centre at a cost of £22 million, on budget and on time. But the most significant projects are the central control function (CCF) and the new en-route centre. CCF will organise airspace in the London terminal manoeuvring area, and will increase the area's capacity by at least 30 per cent. on present levels by the end of 1995. The new en-route centre, for which a site has very recently been purchased in Hampshire, and planning permission gained, will handle all en-route flights over England and Wales outside the London area, and should provide a 40 per cent. increase in capacity by 1996.
But the CAA is investing in people as well as in equipment and new systems. Recruitment of air traffic controllers has risen from 80 to 200 a year, rising to a record level of 240 in 1991. The CAA's College of Air Traffic Control is being expanded. Safety remains the paramount concern of the CAA, and its investment programme and recruitment drive will enable the authority to maintain, and where possible improve, the existing high standards.
I hope that the House will recognise the full part the Government have played in tackling the problems of air traffic control in Europe. Much remains to be done; and nobody suggests that the tasks ahead are easy. I believe that with our European partners we are on the right path towards relegating the inconvenience of congestion and delays to the past.
In conclusion, I should like to say again how much the Government have welcomed the opportunity to debate these two very thoughtful and, if I may say so, constructive reports. I hope that your Lordships will realise from what I have said that the Government are highly conscious of the need to ensure that the objectives of liberalisation are not thwarted by congestion problems. We are working hard to tackle these issues in the forums where they can most appropriately be addressed. I trust your Lordships will agree with me that the Government are acting on lines consistent with the reports.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I hope that the House will not think it discourteous on my part if I do not seek to reply to the very many points made in regard

1741
to the two reports. I should like to express great appreciation to the Minister for the way in which he replied to the debate. I also thank all other noble Lords for their contributions. It has been helpful because it has not been a debate solely of praise of the committee. There has been some criticism, which I take in the spirit in which it was given. Instead of seeking to reply I undertake to go through the Hansard report of the debate and where I think it necessary I shall write to noble Lords in regard to the matters they have raised. I again thank the Minister and all noble Lords for their contributions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

A Wider Europe: Council of Europe's Role
6.12 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what role they believe the Council of Europe should play in the construction of a wider Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one year ago tonight the Berlin Wall was still standing, hardline communists were governing Czechoslovakia and Ceausescu was still terrorising the Romanian people. Today Václav Havel is President of Czechoslovakia, Lech Walesa is running for the presidency of Poland and all of Eastern Europe, including Albania, is looking westwards. In a week's time Hungary will become the first ex-communist country to join the Council of Europe. Three other countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, have applied for membership, and all the countries of the former Eastern bloc bar Romania and Albania have special observer status with the Council's parliamentary assembly. These developments show very clearly both the speed and the nature of the changes that have occurred in Central and Eastern Europe over the past 18 months.
If we cast our minds back even further, some of us will remember the sombre days of the spring of 1949 and the Berlin crisis. In April of that year the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was established, and less than one month later, on 5th May, the agreement setting up the Council of Europe was signed here in London at St. James's Palace. If the conception behind NATO was that of a military alliance to check the spread of communism by force, the Council of Europe was certainly in part originally planned as a political and ideological barrier to collectivist totalitarian thinking. Its statute was based on the very principles of pluralistic parliamentary democracy— those of human rights and the rule of law. Little wonder then that for the next 37 years the Council of Europe, with all its ups and downs in the shadow of the EC, would be complete anathema to those who ruled in Moscow, Prague or Budapest; little wonder also that today those very same countries are all knocking at the door of the Council of Europe in search of a clean bill of democratic health.
It is against this background that I should like to look at the role the Council of Europe should play in the development of the wider post-Berlin Wall Europe which we all greeted with such euphoria just a few months ago. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe obviously need massive aid to move towards the establishment of some sort of market economy. The group of the 24 rich industrialised countries and the EC through a new generation of "super" association agreements are trying to cope with that side of things. But the idea of early EC membership for them which some people are putting about does not in my view seem a realistic assessment at the moment.
The Community cannot at present cope with new applications from Western Europe let alone with hypothetical ones from countries which will take years to establish healthy market economies. But Europe's fledgling democracies need more than mere economic aid. That is why for some months now there has been a great deal of talk about setting up new pan-European political institutions. Mikhail Gorbachev set the ball rolling with his idea of a common European home when he addressed the Council of Europe in Strasbourg 15 or 16 months ago. Since then others, from Francois Mitterrand to Václav Havel, have waxed lyrical on ambitious schemes which on closer analysis often seem to amount to little more than reinventing the wheel.
Meanwhile, perhaps uncharacteristically, the Council of Europe has acted. By June 1989 the parliamentary assembly had set up what was termed "special guest status", to be granted to the parliaments of those countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are moving towards democracy and implementing United Nations and CSCE Helsinki process human rights agreements. As a result, and as I said earlier, the Council of Europe Assembly now groups representatives of the parliaments of all European countries except for Romania and Albania. To all intents and purposes it is already, de facto, the first pan-European political forum.
As things stand, no other existing European organisation is in a position to play such a role. EFTA is an economic grouping. A minimum requirement, as with the EC, is that there should be a market economy in place. NATO and the Western European Union are by definition military and defence organisations. The only other possibility is, of course, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe or the so-called Helsinki process, which includes the United States and Canada in its circle. It has played a major role in easing relations between East and West since it first saw the light of day back in 1975. In a certain sense it was the Trojan horse through which Western values permeated eastwards. Today, with the end of the Cold War and the subsequent political upheavals, we have to ask ourselves whether we still need that Trojan horse or whether we might not be better off using different vehicles to promote democracy, human rights and co-operation among all the countries of Europe.
Heads of state and governments of the 34— previously 35, before German reunification—CSCE countries will be meeting in Paris from 19th to 21st November to map out the post cold-war organisation, or, to use the "in" Eurojargon term, "the future architecture of Europe". Understandably, they will be seeking to accentuate the benefits of the Helsinki process in its three major areas of concern—security issues, economic matters, and what is termed the "human dimension"; in other words, the principle of human rights, democracy and so on.
Alongside those issues they will be looking at how best to involve the former Eastern bloc in the European unification process and foster co-operation between those countries and Western Europe. One option would be to set up a whole series of new institutions to carry out those tasks. In my view that must be resisted. We do not need more bureaucracies. What we need to do is to make better use of existing ones. We should only think in terms of new bodies if existing ones cannot do the job better.
So far as concerns economic matters, we now have the group of 24, the EC, EFTA, the OECD and the UN Economic Commission for Europe. It would need a very fragile imagination to consider anything else. As for security issues, with the demise of the Warsaw Pact and in the face of a new military and strategic situation which is developing, there may well be a case for setting up a new, small and effective organisation to draw on the experience acquired by the CSCE in that area.
However, when it comes to human rights, we in Britain are only too aware that there already is highly effective machinery operating at European level in the shape of the European Court and the European Commission of Human Rights, set up under the Council of Europe's human rights convention which, incidentally, will be celebrating its 40th birthday on 4th November. As a passing reference to the continuing concern about the human rights issue within the Council of Europe framework, only last week the Commission published its findings on the Spycatcher case.
Inevitably, human rights agreements, drawn up by the 35 CSCE states, represent no more than a common denominator agreed by Brezhnev's Russia and the West at a time of confrontation politics. On the other hand, the Council's European human rights convention is actually the highest level of internationally guaranteed human rights protection ever achieved anywhere in the world.
We must at all costs avoid establishing competing schemes. That would merely lead to double standards and in my view would be detrimental to all concerned. It is in our interests and those of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to bring them into the protective and enforceable framework of the Council of Europe and to give their citizens access to the European Court at Strasbourg.
I believe that the Council of Europe is well placed to provide a political home for Europe's emerging democracies. As I have mentioned, Hungary will be
1744
joining on 6th November when the organisation's foreign ministers meet in Rome. Poland has been invited to join once it has held fully democratic elections and these, in all probability, will take place some time early next year. Czechoslovakia's application is being examined. As other countries complete their internal democratic reform process, nothing precludes their also being admitted.
At parliamentary level, with the whole of Europe —that is, bar Romania and Albania—involved, the Council of Europe suggests itself as the obvious nucleus upon which to build a CSCE, parliamentary wing. That fact did not escape the notice of NATO leaders when they met in London last July. At the instigation of President Bush they supported the,
"establishment of a CSCE parliamentary body, the Assembly of Europe, to be based on the existing Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe."
That concept was taken on board by the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly which convened a two-day meeting in September of the representatives of the parliaments of all the CSCE countries to discuss the setting up of an "Assembly of Europe" along the lines suggested by the NATO leaders. All CSCE countries (plus Albania as an observer) were present, but not the United States. The official explanation given was the heavy schedule of the US Congress. Be that as it may, an overwhelming majority of the delegates at the Strasbourg meeting called for continuous parliamentary involvement in the CSCE process to be guaranteed through an "Assembly of Europe" based on the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly. They also asked the CSCE Paris summit meeting to take full account of the potential of existing European, Atlantic and United Nations structures and to create new institutions only where necessary—for example, in the field of conflict resolution. Once again, common sense seems to dictate that we should use an existing structure to meet a new and totally justified need.
I turn to the question of fostering intergovernmental co-operation between the countries of Europe. Again, it would be pointless to set up a new organisation to work in areas such as law, culture, the environment, youth, health and so on. Today, with over 40 years' experience behind it, the Council of Europe has, for instance, drawn up nearly 140 European conventions on almost anything and everything from the international transport of corpses to satellite broadcasting, and from extradition to insider trading. In my view, setting up a new body to do what has already been achieved would be tantamount to re-inventing the wheel. Surely, yet again, common sense dictates that we should use the Council of Europe so that its work can be extended to the new democracies of Eastern Europe with whatever organisational adjustment is subsequently felt necessary.
Governments should indeed take this opportunity to ensure that the Council modernises and streamlines its working methods so that it is able to meet new challenges. They should also ensure that the organisation has sufficient resources to pursue and

1745
increase its programmes of aid towards constitutional, legal and democratic reform which are an essential pre-requisite to consolidating and capitalising on the political changes which have been under way since last year.
Next week two important meetings regarding the future of the Council of Europe and the preparation of the CSCE Paris summit are to take place in Rome. On 5th November, human rights ministers will be meeting on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the signing, in the same city, of the European Convention on Human Rights which now gives more than 400 million people the right to file complaints with the European Commission of Human Rights. Among other issues, the ministers will be looking at how to plug the CSCE into the Council of Europe human rights protection scheme. On the following day foreign ministers meet to plan the Council's place in Europe's future "architecture".
Decisions have to be taken. I therefore ask that Her Majesty's Government inform this House as to the role that they believe the Council of Europe should play in the wider European structure.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, we should all welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in opening the debate and congratulate him on the way he has done so. I agree with everything he has said. As a member of the Council of Europe, he of course has present knowledge and can speak with much more authority than I can. A good many years have passed since I led, first, the Conservative delegation to the Council of Europe and, then, the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament. However, I still maintain my interest in both those bodies. Their roles, as I see it, are in no way antagonistic; they are essentially complementary.
The Community of Six, as we always used to proclaim, was not the whole of Europe; nor is the Community of 12. Austria has applied to become a full member of the Community. I am glad that the Government appear to have withdrawn their initial opposition to that application. Other countries in Scandinavia and elsewhere also have the right to join in due course. The new democracies may enter, as the noble Lord has said. That cannot be done quickly. Meanwhile, closer unity is needed among all states of Europe.
When we joined the Community we said firmly that our purpose was to build a bridge between the Community and our EFTA partners. We are still all together in the Council of Europe, where I believe the assembly is an important forum for Members of all our national Parliaments, including, I am glad to say, the noble Lord. As he explained, with the emergence of the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, the role of the Council of Europe becomes increasingly relevant and important. As he put it so clearly, the Council of Europe is in a real sense the first pan-European forum.
1746
Europe in its widest sense, comprising 30 individual sovereign states, is not, for most of us, a mere geographical concept. By virtue of its composition, and the nature of its activities, I believe, like the noble Lord, that the Council of Europe is best qualified at present to be the instrument of European cooperation right across the board. That is especially true in respect of the promotion of human rights and the common European cultural identity.
Even before recent events transformed the political situation, the council was dealing in a wider context with, for example, problems of the environment, recognising of course that pollution of the Danube does not stop at an imaginary iron curtain. In those and other fields the Council of Europe has achieved a great deal through its many conventions, to which reference has been made, and by other means. It has done, and it is still doing, a good job within the constraints of its unfortunately limited resources.
I should like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government are making more money and resources available to the Council of Europe to meet its growing responsibilities. It does a great deal which is of value to Europe as a whole. For example, for three years, until March of this year, it was Councillor John Morgan of the United Kingdom who was president of the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe—the local government arm of the Council of Europe. He was only the second British president since the first local government conference was held in 1957. In that capacity he led with energy and commitment efforts to strengthen local government, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. I hope that the high standing in this field which Britain secured through him will be followed up by Her Majesty's Government, and that we shall hear that funds are being made available to the local authority associations to help with the training of local government officers and in other ways.
I speak, in a sense, with an interest, as president of the Association of District Councils. I am aware how anxious British local government is to help in that way. I should like to know what support the Government are giving to the Council of Europe in its role of promoting strong and independent local government, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, because it must be understood that it is not possible to secure anywhere real and effective democracy without real and effective local government.
I agree with the noble Lord that the Council of Europe is the first major institution that the new democracies can become qualified to join. We have heard that Hungary is soon to become a member; Poland's application is on the table; others will surely follow and I hope that many are on their way to becoming full members of the EC, however long that process may take. In those circumstances we must pay more regard to Article 230 of the Treaty of Rome, with which your Lordships are no doubt familiar, which states:

1747
"The Community shall establish all forms of co-operation with the Council of Europe".
In 1986 I was a member of the Colombo Commission—so called because it was presided over by Mr. Emilio Colombo, former Prime Minister of Italy and a former president of the European Parliament. We were asked by the Council of Europe to work out future perspectives for European co-operation beyond the present decade. Of course, in due course we reported and made a number of recommendations about structure, organisation and other matters. I shall not weary your Lordships at any length with those recommendations. No doubt they are gathering dust in some appropriate corner of Strasbourg. I shall say only that in our report we laid stress on the need for greater co-operation between the European Community and the Council of Europe. We recommended more extensive contacts at every level —ministerial, parliamentarian and official—and in that connection we argued the case—I put it forward in a general way now—for a single European Civil Service which would create bonds and common interests.
The lack of such a single service for the organisations engaged in the same process of European unification is anachronistic, to say the least, in present circumstances. We also made some comments upon what we described as the modest funds currently at the disposal of the Council of Europe, considering the problems to which it is expected to provide solutions. It deals with terrorism and drugs as well as all the matters that arise in connection with the Convention on Human Rights. I should like to know what the Government are doing with regard to increased or, alternatively, new sources of finance. I agree wholeheartedly with those who argue that rhetoric is no good without action. On the other hand, it is important that we in this country—I make no particular comment upon recent events— should not be too negative in our attitudes to what we seek to achieve in Europe.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister what action the Government are taking to support the role of the Council of Europe in the construction of the wider Europe which I believe we all wish to create.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am afraid that the debate will show a certain unanimity among the speakers who are asking the questions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on putting down the Question. He is a colleague of mine from the parliamentary assembly, and, while I have been thinking about putting down the Question, he has done so and has given us the opportunity to speak.
I shall start by commenting on the similarity between the noble Lord's well thought-out speech and the informed comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, with his long experience of office in the Council of Europe and elsewhere. I should like to speak mainly about the importance of the parliamentary assembly and what it does to achieve genuine unity among the parliamentarians of Europe. There is
1748
an extraordinary proliferation of bodies, all of which do some good but all of which now face a different situation. The CSCE was the first body to provide unity between the East and the West and a common purpose and, as such, it was enormously valuable. The EC, which, as its name implies, is an economic community, is undergoing tremendous development, but is not immediately available to the Eastern European countries. EFTA was set up as an antidote to the EC. The WEU needs a new role which people doubt that it will get. NATO is effective, but the enemy has disappeared. A new role is needed for the combination of countries which form NATO and which do not include all the countries of Western Europe.
We are faced with a very promising situation. Everyone agrees that something must be done, but no one agrees how it should be done. Members of the parliamentary assembly realise, probably more than Ministers, the great value of the Council of Europe. That point has been greatly reinforced by the desire of Eastern European countries to join it. It underlines the importance of the Council of Europe in a way that is of great value and encouragement to those of us in the parliamentary assembly.
The parliamentary assembly is important simply because the parliamentarians get together in a social way and discuss important problems. They are way ahead of their governments in many subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred to some of those subjects. For example, the question of demography and migration is of great importance. The committee of which I have the honour to be a member works extremely hard. It is of great value to governments considering those problems.
The social side is important. My friend Karl Ahrens heads the Social Democrats from Germany. He and I both served in the Middle East. We worked out that I must have bombed him at one time. I apologised for missing him and he accepted my apology gracefully. Such contact is of great importance in solving the problems that we are tackling.
I do not think that the plan outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to expand the Council of Europe and to use it as a forum should include the North American countries. The parliamentarians should be present as guests and should co-operate, but we should go for Europe as an entity in itself. To spread it too wide would mean losing some of its obvious appeal.
I do not want to elaborate on what has been said. The Council of Europe is extremely valuable. It is the original concept and the one which is most practical at present. We want to know whether Her Majesty's Government recognise that point and whether they will support it with money and, more important, with political backing in the Council. The Minister should say what he thinks about the WEU and where it is going because that is another important body. In our case, the parliamentary delegates and substitutes belong to both bodies, but the WEU is a separate structure.

1749
Finally, the Government must give an assurance of their commitment to Europe, especially these days when the newspapers are full of the Government's disagreements in Europe. It is important that we are not left behind again in an insular and isolated position. I hope above all that the Minister can assure us that there is a commitment on the Government's part to supporting the admirable institution of the Council of Europe.
6.46 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on introducing this timely debate on the Council of Europe and on raising a number of interesting issues. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I had not even thought about putting down this Question because I am not a Liberal. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for doing so. Without seeking to embarrass him, but as a colleague on the British delegation, I should perhaps say that he has won considerable admiration among our European colleagues for his tireless work as chairman of the Human Rights Committee, involving a great deal of travelling and effort. That shone through in his splendid speech this evening.
It is also fair to say that the present delegation, which is ably led by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, makes a considerable impact on the debates, reports and work of the assembly. It is fitting tonight that my noble friend Lord Reay who is to reply is a past member of the delegation. I hope that his brief is as enthusiastic as his work was when he served on the Council.
Since 5th May 1949 when, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, reminded us, the Council of Europe was born in London, the institution has grown steadily in achievement in upholding democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It must take credit for the many patient years of work in the period of the cold war, the confrontations of the 1960s and the 1970s, the strains within Western Europe and then the reforms in Poland and the dramatic collapse of the Eastern bloc. It must take credit for the numerous conventions covering many aspects of life from human rights and suppression of terrorism to animal welfare, protection of wildlife, the trans-frontier co-operation and, more recently, television broadcasting.
On a more individual scale, the Council's inception of the twinning of towns has led far beyond the unpronounceable names on roads outside towns to the getting together of European communities and a viable mixture of cultures. It is appropriate that such fine ideals should stem from the inspiration of such a beautiful city as Strasbourg.
The success of the Council's achievements stems from the wisdom of sticking to the firm standards of qualification not only to join but while one is a member of the Council. Both Greece and, partly, Turkey, discovered that to their temporary cost. The respect for the Council has today made it an essential
1750
club for any European country which is a non-member to join to legitimise itself in the eyes of its neighbours.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has described vividly the responsible task facing the Council with regard to Eastern Europe. It is both an exciting and an exacting task of checking not only that true democratic elections have taken place, but also of advising on the new structures of local and central governments and even helping to rewrite constitutions. None of those are mean tasks and they require great experience and skill. Where does the assembly fit into the work of the Council? Although it accounts for only 10 per cent. of the Council's activities, I believe its work is carried out in the most extraordinarily effective way. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to that point.
It is a natural foil to cosy committees of ministers. The Council with its 23 members takes a much wider view than a more narrowly based body. Its members are in direct touch with home parliaments. That is of great value. The Council, backed by a small but dedicated staff of only 50 people, submits the most impressive reports, often upon issues which are ahead of public opinion. They regularly form the basis of new draft conventions. It was encouraging to read recently that the Council's budget, having undergone negative growth for 10 years, is now to be strengthened to meet the extra demands imposed on the Council of handling Eastern European matters. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, would be interested to know what the plans are for strengthening the Council's budget. I hope my noble friend can give us the increase on previous budgets as a percentage figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, referred to the future of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe as did all the other speakers. He referred to the role that the Council of Europe could and should play in that matter. I am sure that my noble friend will confirm that it would be bureaucratic madness to set up a separate Assembly of Europe to meet once a year for four days when the Council of Europe can easily accommodate that. I hope that it will be agreed in Paris in November that the Council's considerable experience on human rights can be used for the benefit of the CSCE member countries. There is even a new building that is now under construction which could accommodate them.
The matter of security is left for the consideration of the CSCE. This again could be handled by the Western European Union, which has an existing capability in this matter. I am sure there will be a great deal of lobbying as regards what new institutions are needed for the CSCE. In truth, given time, the Council of Europe could adapt to tackling this task and could carry it out with distinction and experience. If this debate had taken place two years ago, before the political map of Europe was changed by President Gorbachev's ideals, the arguments on where the Council of Europe was going would have been somewhat muted. Today the Council stands at the threshold of new challenges. It is well equipped in

1751
experience and has a good reputation. It is a wider European institution. It does not haggle over trade or seek to grasp economic control over fellow member states. Rather it seeks to create a unified Europe that cares about culture and the environment but, above all, about democratic freedom. The Council is the unsung hero of Europe and it deserves support for its proper role in the future. I hope that my noble friend will confirm the Government's support for the Council tonight.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, when I was asked if my name could be put forward as a delegate to the Council of Europe, I have to admit that I had little, if any, knowledge of that body. That occurred in 1986 and since then I have got to know the Council well. I hold much of its work in high esteem. However, I fear that there is small knowledge of the Council among the general public, and perhaps even among some Members of your Lordships' House.
As we have already heard, the Council represents 23 European countries and is in the process of welcoming the first countries from what until recently was known as Eastern Europe. Its delegates are all nominated from their elected parliaments and are therefore able to speak with the authority of their assemblies. In spite of this, confusion still exists in some people's minds as to the difference between this assembly and the European Parliament. It is regrettable that the Council of Europe is not better known and that the activities of its committees, the contents of its reports and the decisions of the Council of Ministers are not given more coverage by the media. Here I hope I may join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on initiating this debate. It is, in my memory, the first time that mention of the Council has been given any exposure in your Lordships' House. However, it is regrettable that the debate is taking place at quite a late hour and that so few noble Lords are present.
As we have already heard, the Council of Europe's main aims are to promote European unity by protecting and strengthening pluralist democracy and human rights; to seek solutions to the problems facing European society and to promote awareness of a European cultural society. I think your Lordships will agree that these aims are important to us all. They lift us above the narrower personal and even national concerns. At the same time they can have a lasting influence on the Europe of the future. I hope they will also have a spin-off effect on the rest of the world.
There can be little doubt that many third world countries look to Europe for an example. The Parliament at Westminster is not called the Mother of Parliaments for nothing. We therefore have a responsibility not only as Europeans but also as members of the wider world in which we live to take note of our conduct, of our concern for moral issues and of the kind of world our children and grandchildren can hope to inherit. It is so easy to sit back and say that everything will come right in the end. However, if the people of Eastern Europe had
1752
followed that philosophy, I wonder whether they would today be emerging from the traumatic experiences they have lived with for so many years.
As I said earlier, I have a high regard for much of the work that is undertaken by the Council of Europe. But, having said that, I believe it has a tendency to involve itself in too many different issues, some of which are of comparatively minor importance. Its committees have virtually a free rein to investigate, report on and debate almost anything they wish. This in turn involves expenditure, the time of its permanent officials—we have heard that those officials are few on the ground—and debating time in the hemicycle.
It is my belief that, if there were tighter control over the subjects undertaken for investigation and debate and if the Council concentrated more on the major questions of moral issues and human rights, it might be more successful in making its voice heard and in influencing the decisions taken by the governments of its member states. Having said that, I believe that the Council of Europe can and should be considered as the watchdog of our society, or perhaps even as its conscience, so it is a pity that the general public are not more aware of it and that the media do not think it worth paying more attention to. It is true that the Council does not produce many sensational stories, but it carries out much useful and important work. It also sends many worthwhile recommendations to the Council of Ministers. Perhaps, if those recommendations were subject to a little more exposure to the public, more of them might see the light of day.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I start, as many other noble Lords have done, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, on initiating this debate. It has been extraordinarily useful. Perhaps it has demonstrated a degree of unanimity and agreement which is not always apparent across the floor of either this House or indeed another place. I wish to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said, just before he sat down. Those of us who are in the House tonight probably consist of current members of the Council of Europe or past members of the assembly. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. If he has not attained the Council yet, I am sure that at some stage his party will send him there. I know of no one who has served on the Council of Europe and not found it a worthwhile, helpful and broadening process so far as concerns his own views, attitudes and experience. I certainly found it so some years ago. To that extent this is a useful, helpful and timely debate.
It is also useful, helpful and timely because it gives the Government an opportunity—which I hope they will take when the Minister replies—to tell the House about their thinking on the role that the Council of Europe can play in the new situation in Europe. Having listened to the debate I do not believe that there is much disagreement between us on matters of principle. Clearly, at the moment Europe is in a state of intense and rapid transition. Intense and rapid transition may be exhilarating but it is extremely difficult to control. We are moving with immense speed from a Continent dominated by two power

1753
blocs, led successively by the world superpowers. Our task is now to try to achieve a more flexible, reasonable and co-operative structure.
Transition is not only difficult; it is painful. The danger is that in that transition, as in so many others, the best may become the enemy of the good. In my view we have to build on what we have. I echo the suspicions that have been voiced tonight about the possibility of creating new institutions. I am not against creating new institutions if new institutions are needed; but looking at what is going on in Europe at present I should have thought that a new institution which was designed purely and simply to give parliamentary backing to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was unnecessary.
If we are all agreed that the newly emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have to be accommodated within the comity of European nations, the question to be decided is how to bring about that accommodation and what institutions can be used most successfully to achieve it. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, say that the Council of Europe and the European Economic Community were not to be viewed as antagonists. Of course they are not. Their roles are different; their structures are different; their membership is different; the way in which they are developing is totally different; and their duties are different. They are two different institutions, each of which is playing, in its own way, an extremely important role in the development of Europe.
In some ways it is the very flexibility and adaptability of the Council of Europe that makes it particularly appropriate in today's situation. I read a debate which took place in another place about a year ago in which my honourable friend Mr. Donald Anderson, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that, rather like the famous beer advertisement, it could reach places that others could not reach. If one compares the way in which the Community can act and the way in which the Council of Europe can act, it is that flexibility and adaptability which makes the Council of Europe extremely helpful and useful in the present situation in Europe.
We support the principle that the Council of Europe, suitably adapted, could provide the basis for a parliamentary assembly for the CSCE countries. However, it will need to be adapted, and it may have to be adapted quite radically. The problem, as in so many difficult situations, is how we get from where we are now to where we want to go. I therefore have a number of questions to put to the Government. I do not believe that this is an appropriate occasion for a long speech from this Bench, but there are a number of issues on which I should be grateful if the Government would let us know their thinking.
I should like the Minister to say how the Government see the process of the adaptation of the Council of Europe. To take one of the most difficult questions of all, if the Council of Europe is to provide the basis for a parliamentary assembly based upon the CSCE countries, what about the North Americans? Whatever else one can say about the United States of
1754
America, it is difficult to argue that it is a European country. On the other hand, I hold the view strongly that to exclude the United States from the affairs of Europe would be a disaster in the state of fluidity, instability and uncertainty that is now upon us. No doubt the Government have given some consideration to how one could accommodate the justifiable and justified position of the United States in the Council of Europe if it were used as the basis for a CSCE assembly. I should be grateful to hear the Government's thoughts on that subject.
Secondly, how do the Government see the existing Council expanding to take in all European countries? There, indeed, we have problems. To take only one, Albania, the Government's position, held very strongly in the past and supported from these Benches, has been that the Council of Europe is meant for countries which have representative democracies. Whatever Albania has, it does not have a representative democracy. Do the Government consider that Albania should be part of the process? How, indeed, does the Minister see the very strong human rights role of the Council of Europe being maintained if the Council is expanded to take in all the countries of Eastern Europe? I should be unhappy to see the very strong human rights work carried out by the Council of Europe almost since its inception weakened. On the other hand, if the existing structures of the Council are to be changed, would the Government accept the principle that any such change should not weaken the human rights role of the Council?
Can the noble Lord advise the House as to how many applications for membership of the Council have been received from countries in Eastern Europe? Perhaps more importantly, can he indicate what progress is being made in the processing of those applications? It would be helpful for us to have a basis of fact on which to consider the problem.
Again, can the noble Lord advise the House as to what progress is being made in reinforcing the role of the Council of Europe and the CSCE in monitoring human rights in Eastern Europe? If that is to be one of the criteria for admission to an expanded Council of Europe or whatever it becomes, are we actively monitoring what is going on? Can the Minister tell us how that is being done and to what effect?
If the Council of Europe becomes institutionalised as the parliamentary body of the CSCE, what enforcement role does the Minister see the Council of Europe having, bearing in mind the criticisms levelled at the Council in previous years that it is merely a talking shop? If it is to fulfil a role as the parliamentary assembly of the CSCE there is a fundamental question of competence. I do not believe that it would be sufficient merely to expand the Council of Europe in its present form, with its present responsibilities and powers, to include the countries of Eastern Europe and then pretend that we have created a valid pan-European parliamentary assembly.
There is a further small point which was provoked to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who made a passionate plea for local government,

1755
which we all support. Can the Minister tell us why, in that event, the Government have not yet signed the European charter for local self-government? Perhaps the Minister can help us on that point. I am delighted to receive the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for that point.
Finally, there is the question of money. If the Council of Europe is to be adapted and that process of adaptation is to be successful and it is to become the nucleus of a parliamentary assembly for CSCE, it will not come cheap. There is a myth that peace is cheap and war is expensive. In my experience it is frequently the other way about. If we are to create democratic institutions which will last and which include the Eastern European countries, the Government will have to face up to the difficulty of providing sufficient resources for that to take place.
In conclusion, perhaps I may reiterate my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill on having initiated this debate. As I said, I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between Members who have taken part in the debate. I hope that the Minister will have taken note of the questions. I see that the Box is busy and no doubt notes will be passed to him. However, if he cannot answer the questions tonight, I hope that at least he will look at them seriously and give his considered answers in due course.
7.10
Lord Reay: My Lords, Britain has been closely associated with the Council of Europe since its inception, and even lbefore. We remain staunch supporters of the Council of Europe to this day; and we contribute actively to thinking about the Council's role in the future. In 1943, when Europe was torn by armed conflict, Winston Churchill put forward a vision of:
"a Council of Europe which must inevitably embrace the whole of Europe, and all the main branches of the European family must some day be partners in it".
That vision was only partially realised in May 1949 when Europe was tragically and unnaturally divided by the Iron Curtain which descended across the Continent. The Council of Europe became the first European political organisation to be created after the Second World War, by means of a statute signed in London. The Council's role, embodied in that statute, was to achieve:
"an ever-greater unity between its member states on the basis of pluralist democracy and human rights".
That role is as valid now as it was then. Then, the Council had only 10 member countries, of which Britain was proud to be one. It expanded over the years to incorporate other Western European democracies and has reached a total of 23 members.
Today an even more glittering perspective beckons as a result of the magnificent political transformation that we have seen develop in Europe in the past few years. Before too long we can expect to see the accession of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia to the Council of Europe. Eventually we hope that conditions will be such as to enable the remaining
1756
countries of Eastern Europe to join. Thus, the vision of the Council of Europe's founding fathers of uniting Europe shows at last a possibility of being realised.
Before going on to the future, let me say something about the Council of Europe's achievements. The Council's work in the field of human rights is uniquely valuable and Britain has contributed significantly to it. Britain was the first country to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951. This preceded the creation of the European Commission of Human Rights in 1954 and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights in 1959. The European Convention on Human Rights was a landmark in the development of international law and sets a standard of law and behaviour by which modern democracies can be and have been judged. If a country fails to meet that standard, it runs the risk of being expelled.
The threat posed to the fabric of our society by drugs is being actively combated by the Council of Europe Pompidou Group, which was established in 1980. We welcome the Pompidou Group's decision to offer full membership to Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia.
The Council of Europe parliamentary assembly provides a unique forum—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, called it the first pan-European forum —for elected representatives from 23 European democratic parliaments. The contribution to that assembly of successive British representatives is well known throughout Europe. It continues to this day, not least as a result of the contributions of noble Lords taking part in the debate tonight. I should like to pay tribute to that continuing work in your Lordships' House this evening.
Time would not allow me to comment on all the other aspects of valuable activity, such as the implementation of the 1985 European Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage and the Council's current project on the protection and enhancement of 20th century architecture. The Council of Europe also has an acknowledged role to play in areas such as social affairs, where it has established a social charter, or in local government matters, where it has promoted co-operation between local authorities. That I believe is a point dear to my noble friend Lord Rippon. The Council's work here may not often hit the headlines but it is nonetheless useful for that.
Turning back to the future, the Council of Europe is indeed beginning a new phase. As I have said, we now have the prospect of welcoming Eastern European members. The Council of Europe has done much to promote this outcome. It has been active in promoting reform and democratisation; it has afforded advice to aspirant members on the legislation which would be required for membership. It has put aside special financial provisions for co-operation with Central and Eastern Europe; and it has been involved in monitoring free and fair elections in countries which have not experienced them for over 50 years.

1757
Membership of the Council of Europe is for those countries a major step toward rejoining the wider European family. Further steps are possible, as Britain has already proposed, by means of association agreements between individual East European countries and the European Community. Membership of the European Community may for some of them also be an eventual possibility. On 3rd October, with the unification of Germany, the geographical area of the Council of Europe, as that of the Community, increased to include the eastern part of Germany. On 6th November Hungary will become the first state from Central and Eastern Europe to take its seat as a full member of the Council of Europe. I feel sure that all Members of this House will wish to join me in welcoming that prospect.
Poland, which was a pioneer of reform in Eastern Europe, and Czechoslovakia are likely to join before long. Meanwhile, both of those countries have been invited to send representatives to the meeting of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers which is due to take place in Rome on 6th November. Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and Bulgaria currently have guest status in the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly and are thus able to witness part of the democratic process in action.
Of course, as many noble Lords have recognised, the Council of Europe is not the only body which has a role to play in the field of human rights in Europe. The CSCE, through the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, affords the West an unrivalled opportunity to monitor the human rights performance of all European states. The CSCE of course includes the Soviet Union, Canada and the United States, in addition to the 23 members of the Council of Europe and the Eastern European countries. We believe that their close involvement in multilateral human rights work in Europe is desirable. That was a view which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, quite strongly expressed.
The Council of Europe and the CSCE have developed their respective instruments and practices along distinctive lines. While the European Convention on Human Rights is based upon legally enforceable obligations, the human rights commitments of the Helsinki Final Act are exclusively of a political rather than a legal nature. Both the CSCE and the Council of Europe in their different ways have been of enormous value as benchmarks and as a means of encouraging the development of human rights and of democracy. Work is now in hand, supported by us, to find the most efficient division of labour between the two organisations. As noble Lords will be aware, the London Declaration of the NATO summit last July recommended the establishment of:
"a CSCE Parliamentary body, the Assembly of Europe, to be based on the existing Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg, and to include representatives of all CSCE member states".
The United Kingdom welcomed this suggestion.
Establishing an assembly of Europe is a decision for CSCE states themselves to take. But in our view it would make good sense to harness to the new body the
1758
prestige and experience of the Council of Europe assembly. There would be obvious advantages in a close co-operation between the two bodies over procedures and facilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said, we must make use of existing bureaucracies before we think of creating new ones. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said something along similar lines. The CSCE debate, which was hosted by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 26th to 27th September, was a positive first example of how CoE/CSCE co-operation in this area might work.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords, although I am afraid that I shall not be able to deal very well with the barrage of questions which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, fired at me in the speech that he made just before I rose. I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having introduced the subject and congratulate him on his speech. He has admirably identified the issues facing the Council of Europe. I agree with him on virtually everything he said. I should particularly like to endorse his remarks on the need for financial efficiency.
My noble friend Lord Rippon raised the question of the budget. I should like to emphasise that we are one of the major financial contributors to the Council of Europe. In 1990 our contribution was £8.7 million. We met about 17 per cent. of its total budget. We also contribute actively to discussions designed to concentrate the Council's resources on priority areas. Before agreeing to new resources, we seek in the Council, as we do in many other international organisations, to ensure that existing resources are used more efficiently.
In that context, I should like to mention the Know How Fund. It was established for Eastern Europe. In this financial year we expect to spend some £15 million in various key sectors in those countries. It is a fund which covers among other things political, legal social and media matters, banking and financial services, industrial restructuring and privatisation. It also gives help to emerging parliamentary and local governments.
My noble friend Lord Rippon raised the subject of local government. As he knows, the Council of Europe is the home of the European Conference of Local Authorities. It is active in promoting co-operation between local authorities in the member countries. As new members join from Eastern Europe, that co-operation will certainly increase and will continue to have the Government's support.
My noble friend referred to Article 230 of the Treaty of Rome which refers to co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. No noble Lord is better fitted than my noble friend to bring up that subject, as he pointed out. I was privileged to serve in the delegation which he led in the European Parliament many years ago.
There is co-operation between the European Community and the Council of Europe both in the form of access to publications and of periodic

1759
meetings between the Commission and the Council of Europe secretariat. However, in our view there is room for improvement in order to avoid duplication of activity. The Government are active in support of that aim.
I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, about the parliamentary assembly. I am happy to give him the assurance that he sought of Her Majesty's Government's continued commitment to the Council of Europe.
I endorse the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the importance of the Council of Europe maintaining its high standard in relation to human rights and democracy. I shall have to write to my noble friend on his question about budgetary growth, giving him the details that he requested.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Rodney is my successor in the Council of Europe delegation. He too touched upon the need for efficiency and focus in the Council's activities. That issue was addressed by the Council of Ministers in May 1989 and the British Government strongly endorse the declaration issued on that occasion which called for efforts to improve the effectiveness of intergovernmental action.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, upon his appointment. I believe that this was his first occasion on the Front Bench. I welcome him. He brings very great international experience to bear from which I am sure we shall all benefit in the years to come. That was all too evident in the series of expert and testing questions with which he showered me. If he does not mind, I shall write to him on them.
I have mentioned some of the areas in which the Council of Europe is actively working to promote co-operation between European states. There are of course many others: health, social and economic affairs, education, culture and sport, legal affairs, youth matters, co-operation between local and regional authorities, and so on. In short, it is every area, excluding defence, which affects the basic conditions of life for 400 million Europeans.
Because of its experience and the respect in which it is held, the Council of Europe is well qualified to play a vital role in building tomorrow's Europe. The Council has proved its value, not just as an organisation serving the interests of all its members but as a beacon showing others the way to a more open and just society in Europe.

London Underground Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
That the Promoters of the London Underground Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted:
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Adelphi Estate Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
That the Promoters of the Adelphi Estate Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next morning of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
  Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [H.L.]
    British Railways (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
      Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
        Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]
          Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
            London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
              London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
                Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
                Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
                North Yorkshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
                Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
                A Message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolutions of this House of 17th October, 23rd October and 25th October.
London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
Courts and Legal Services Bill
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendments to the Commons amendments agreed to.

Broadcasting Bill
Returned from the Commons on Friday last with certain Lords amendments agreed to, with certain other Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to with amendments; the Commons reasons and amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order 48.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.