HL Deb 29 October 1990 vol 522 cc1741-59

6.12 p.m.

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 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 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.

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: 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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.