Lords Sitting of 6 March 1991

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

Cleveland: Employment Prospects
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many new companies and new jobs are currently expected to be created in Cleveland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in 1989 there were an estimated 1,700 new registrations for VAT in the County of Cleveland. The net increase was over 600, or 6.5 per cent. That is a faster rate of increase than the national average. Early indications are that nationally there was a continuing net increase in 1990.
There are no recent employment figures for Cleveland, but in the Northern region as a whole the number of people in employment rose by an estimated 21,000 in the year to September 1990. There are no projections of future changes in any of those figures.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It is good news for an area which has experienced exceptionally high unemployment. Can my noble friend say what contribution is being made by the Teesside Development Corporation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Teesside Development Corporation has been very successful. There have been 109 successful projects since September 1987, when it was created, resulting in a total of over 3,000 jobs. That is forecast to rise in due course to 7,000 jobs.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, have the Government sought advice from any well-run companies in the area regarding how more new jobs might be created?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. Cleveland is covered by the Teesside Training and Enterprise Council which has been fully operational since 27th April 1990. The TECs play a vital part in the national training network. It is their local knowledge which is important in devising the change of skills in older companies and industries needed for the new and more modern industries that are developing in Cleveland.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister was almost right. Is he aware that the Teesside Development Corporation has already created 3,082 jobs? When the projects already committed to the area are completed a total of 7,500 jobs will have been created in the area. As the deputy chairman of the corporation, I do not wish to boast, but does the Minister agree that that is a commendable record achieved over the short period of
1386

three years that the corporation has existed? Will he accept that Cleveland County Council's imaginative proposals for a light rail transit are commendable? Will the Government look sympathetically at the Section 56 application from the council when it is received?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he has done for Teesside Development Corporation. I hope that that indicates the support of his party for development corporations. He is correct; a further 84 projects are planned to create a further 6,700 jobs. I understand that 60 per cent. of the activities involve inward investment especially from Scandinavia and the United States. That is a very good plan. I shall bear in mind his second point and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that one additional reason for the relatively satisfactory situation in the North East as a whole, as well as Cleveland, is due to the activities over the past 10 years and more of organisations such as Business in the Community, local enterprise agencies and all the other activities which have encouraged business generally to play a larger role in the community?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Business in the Community launched the Teesside Tomorrow team to provide a focus for economic and social development in the Teesside area, and to complement the initiative of the Teesside Development Corporation. Cleveland City Action Team received £350,000 additional funding from the DTI. It now has a budget of £1.1 million, which is the largest in the country.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I was the Member representing Middlesbrough, Cleveland was one of the most flourishing areas in the country? Alas, it is not so today. However, thanks to the Teesside Development Corporation prospects are looking brighter.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord says.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the gloom in the rest of the country, will the Minister consider putting the Teesside Development Corporation in charge of the whole country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is the Government's express desire to bring those benefits to the whole of the country.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the Teesside Development Corporation was one of the first bodies in Britain to instruct small companies to treat their accounts not as a tax dodging enterprise but as a management instrument. Does the Minister agree that that was effective in Teesside?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not entirely aware of the facts which my noble friend brings to my attention. The figures I gave in my original Answer indicate that it is not only the Teesside Development

1387
Corporation that has been successful in creating businesses; a large number of small businesses have been set up in the locality.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while we always appreciate the efforts of my noble friend Lord Dormand in all his works, is it not worth bearing in mind that the unemployment rate in Cleveland in January 1991, on the Department of Employment count, was 13.9 per cent. of the active population? Does the Minister agree that it is worth bearing in mind that the Cleveland County Council itself says that, based on past trends and current knowledge, it expects to have about 150 new companies coming to Cleveland next year but, because of job losses in large companies, there will be zero net growth in employment in Cleveland?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in part. The unemployment rate in Cleveland is one of the highest in the country. However, Cleveland has had a history of even worse unemployment figures when the industries that had been established there were wound down and before new industries were brought into play. Unemployment in Cleveland has dropped from 40 per cent. between 1986 and the present day. That indicates that there is room for improvement and a history of job creation in that area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree with Cleveland County Council that the increase in employment in 1991 will be zero?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is pure speculation. I have indicated that in 1989 there was an increase of 21,000 jobs in the area.

The Brain Drain
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response, if any, they have made or intend to make to the open letter about the brain drain signed and sent to the Prime Minister by 72 scientists.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have noted the views expressed in this and in letters putting forward similar views sent by the Chairman of British Scientists Abroad to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State whose responsibilities include science.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has agreed to meet a deputation of representatives from British Scientists Abroad to discuss the issues they have raised.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. As regards the brain drain, is the Minister aware that if the present cuts are carried out the nuclear structure facility based at Daresbury near Warrington may have to close in two years' time? That establishment is involved in the most
1388
advanced research on a wide variety of subjects including nuclear physics and Alzheimer's disease. Is the Minister further aware that over 500 letters have been received by Sir Mark Richmond, most of which have come from scientists overseas, pointing out that if this facility is closed we shall be losing probably the most advanced research development facility of its kind in the world? Does the noble Lord agree that we shall suffer terrible consequences in the future if we allow that to take place?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) has announced that the nuclear structure facility at its Daresbury laboratory near Warrington will probably be closing earlier than previously planned. It seems likely that it will close in 1993. I appreciate the great disappointment of those working in this field of science, but it is SERC's decision based on its assessment of scientific priorities in its programme. I further understand that SERC is setting up a study to look at the longer-term future role of nuclear structure physics in its overall programme. That would seem to be the right approach. The chairman of SERC, Sir Mark Richmond, emphasised that overall the great majority of the programme remains in place and that it is all of excellent quality.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology is presently engaged on a speedy inquiry into the crisis in science funding and hopes to report within a month? Therefore, I hope that more questions of this kind will be answered. Does the Minister feel that any part of the brain drain is due to serious underfunding for academic salaries due to government cuts?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we look forward to receiving the findings of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. We refute the suggestion that there is a brain drain or that science has been affected by underfunding. The figures just published by the universities' statistical record reveal that for the seventh year in succession there has been a net inflow of academic staff from abroad.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the problems is that some of our older and more distinguished scientists emigrated a little while ago and that they then recruited a great number of the very bright young men whom they knew to be working in this country? Does the noble Lord agree that a difficulty arises in trying to get these young people back because we have not got the money to do so? Does he further agree that that will make for a very bleak future in the next 10 years or so, when we shall be very short of the more experienced scientists, and that their age range will be getting older and older?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thought that I had investigated every area of the subject, but I

1389
have not studied the age breakdown. I shall he pleased to look into the point which the noble Baroness has raised and I shall write to her.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the Minister referred to the closure as being likely to take place in 1993. Is he correct in saying that that is SERC's assessment on the basis of its programme? Would it be more correct to say that it is SERC's assessment on the basis of the budget within which it is having to work? Do the Government agree that national prestige is involved here? Does the noble Lord agree that we should do everything possible to ensure that these very prestigious projects are continued without phasing out the smaller and important projects?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, overall government support for science has increased in real terms by 23 per cent. since 1979–80. The underlying trend continues undiminished. SERC has been undertaking a thorough-going review of its forward programme. I do not think that it is for government to interfere with the individual decisions it makes.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report in the Guardian that,
"President Bush has been telling US scientists that research and development will enjoy the largest increases in government spending"?
In the light of that, can he tell the House how many centres of scientific research in the United Kingdom have publicly stated that their research programmes are in danger of closure because of underfunding and the brain drain?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we maintain that they are not underfunded. Just two years ago the science budget had a stepped increase of 8 per cent. That uplift in real terms has been sustained through the planning period to 1993–94. The real measure of the state of British science can be assessed by the number of learned papers that are produced. This country produces the greatest number of learned papers with the single exception of the United States of America.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of what he said about the real increase in science funding in this country, by comparison with other European countries the percentage of GDP spent on science research is very much lower? Does he not agree that, when deciding whether to return or to stay abroad, what young scientists as well as older scientists will look at is the relative position and not the absolute position in the United Kingdom? When his right honourable friend meets representatives of British scientists abroad, will he be able to say that there will be some increase in United Kingdom funding to enable us to catch up with our European and United States competitors?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, spending as a proportion of GDP, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is higher in this country than in either Japan or the United States, although similar comparisons with Germany and other European
1390
countries would not be favourable. I see no particular logic in the idea that spending on R&D should be tied to a certain percentage of GDP.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can the noble Lord at least confirm that, in the event of atomic scientists being restricted in this country, we shall maintain our connection with the collective programme at CERN and that our scientists will maintain their connection with it?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that that is the case.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with my experience that when 50 or more academics sign one letter to the newspapers they always get their facts wrong?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. In fact there were some 200 signatures to the letter.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I agree that underfunding is a problem, but does the Minister accept that there is another problem which contributes towards the brain drain? I refer to the question of age discrimination in employment generally. That affects not only scientists but skilled craftsmen at all levels and in all industries. They are irreplaceable.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord's comments relate to a previous Question. I am afraid to say that I do not know about age discrimination.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. Of course he is in order but most noble Lords seem to think that we have spent quite a long time on this Question and that it might be appropriate to move on to the next one. However, if the noble Lord wishes to put a question, he may do so.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. Does the Minister agree that his statement that there is no brain drain is most astonishing? There has been a brain drain for as long as I can remember. There was one in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. The question is whether the quality of those leaving the country is higher than the quality of those recruited from other countries to take their place. Will he ask Sir Mark Richmond to make an assessment of that factor?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there is and there should be movement of academic staff. With regard to the brain drain, if it exists, far fewer people leave—a factor of 30 per cent.—than in the 1960s. The matter is largely in balance with an inflow of about a dozen. I shall certainly ask Sir Mark Richmond the question which the noble Lord asks.

Elderly People in Residential Care Homes
2.55 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the finding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that elderly people in residential care homes are suffering unacceptable levels of anxiety and stress due to the shortfall between income support levels and the fees charged by such homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the findings of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report Beyond the limit are at variance with the findings of the survey commissioned from Price Waterhouse by the Department of Social Security into the costs of providing residential care. In October 1990 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced increases to the limits payable in residential care and nursing homes of some £225 million to take effect from April this year. The basic income support limit for the elderly in residential care homes has increased faster than inflation over the last five years.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He will know that the report revealed a substantial number of cases of severe hardship. Is he aware that government policy in this matter was clearly stated in a circular from the Department of Health, HC 89/5, which says that no one should be placed in residential or nursing care against their wishes if that meant that they or their relatives became personally responsible for the charges? If that is government policy, why are the Government unable to accept the proposal in the NACAB report that, as an interim measure until the community care plans are implemented, the benefit levels should be topped up by the Department of Social Security in these cases of severe hardship?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows well, it has never been our intention to meet all the fees, however high they might be. It must be a matter for the homes and the clients in them to negotiate their fees. In response to the findings of the Price Waterhouse survey and other evidence before us we have announced real increases of some £225 million from this April. The suggestion that the noble Lord repeats from the NACAB report would quite simply have the effect of pushing up the fees to whatever limit the homes agreed to put them.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a serious problem in residential care homes which is exacerbated by the Government's failure so far to implement the community care programme and to uprate benefits annually in line with the rate of inflation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, community care is another question. The matter of income support limits in residential homes will remain with us after the implementation of community care. As I said in my original Answer, we have increased support for the elderly by more than the rate of inflation over the past
1392
five years. I also remind the noble Lord that increases this year for the very dependent elderly have risen by even more than the standard £155 to £160. The amount has gone up by £15 to £185.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report by the Council for Caring for the Elderly which came out just a few weeks ago confirms the evidence in the NACAB report? Does he accept that there are some disturbing cases both in care homes and in nursing homes where people are being asked to top up fees on behalf of their relatives, thereby reducing their savings to nothing, and elderly people—sometimes very elderly people—are being asked to leave the homes because they cannot pay the full fee? Is that not absolutely wrong? Should not some action be taken to ensure that private care homes do not act in that way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in setting the limits my right honourable friend looked at a great deal of evidence. In particular he looked at the Price Waterhouse report which considered the costs—I stress the word "costs"—and not the charges in some 700 homes and was the widest detailed analysis of this matter ever undertaken. As a result, my right honourable friend was able to increase income support limits. The evidence we have at the moment suggests that at least half the homes are at the level of income support or below. If we followed the line suggested by the noble Lord of raising income support limits willy-nilly to whatever figure he cared to put forward, we should find that the charges would go up and up and the noble Lord would find that that had a serious effect on those not in receipt of income support.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord has replied to a question that I did not put to him. I was not arguing the case for raising the levels. I drew his attention to the problem and I asked whether the department could take action about private nursing homes which are asking elderly dependent people to leave because they are not able to pay the full fee required.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said earlier, it has never been our intention to meet all the fees, however high they may be, in any individual home. There will always be homes, and indeed there are homes in all parts of the country as the Price Waterhouse survey showed—that is, both nursing and residential homes—which fall within the limits we have set.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of these homes were started as a result of the business opportunity schemes and that the owners are therefore obliged to charge very exorbitant fees in order to satisfy their shareholders?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that point. Those responsible for any home will want to try to set a fee level which will attract clients to the home.

Bangladesh Elections
3 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Commonwealth Group monitoring the elections in Bangladesh has ascertained that all the candidates standing are out of prison and able to canvass.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Commonwealth and the British parliamentary observers have found the elections free and fair. Candidates under detention were not able to canvass in person, but their representatives canvassed on their behalf. Some of those under detention won seats.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that most satisfactory reply. However, is he aware that acting President Shahabuddim Ahmed of the Bangladesh Government specifically invited a British CPA team of investigators to monitor the election? Is he also aware that former Vice President Moudud was imprisoned and actually won his seat and that it is thought that he will now be released from prison? Is he further aware that the results of the election were that 140 seats were won by Begum Zia, 95 seats by the Awami League of Sheikh Hasima and 35 seats by the Jatiya Party of former President Ershad?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I shall start by dealing with my noble friend's first two questions. I am aware that a team of 12 Commonwealth observers attended the election, which included two British representatives, Mr. Roger Barltrop, the former British High Commissioner to Fiji, and Mr. George Foulkes, MP. We have; agreed to meet up to 30 per cent. of the costs incurred by the observer team. We believe that former Vice President Moudud is being held in Dhaka central gaol. We understand that he is being charged with corruption but that he has indeed been elected to parliament.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we warmly welcome the report that the elections in Bangladesh were free and fair, does the Minister agree that the need in that country is now for political and economic stability? Can he give the total amount of British aid to Bangladesh at present? Further, can he tell the House what support we are giving to the NGOs in the area?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we also welcome the fact that the elections were free and fair. Their successful organisation is a tribute to the interim government headed by acting President Shahabuddim Ahmed. Our aid to Bangladesh, which is one of the world's poorest countries, is substantial at over £50 million a year. It is all on grant terms and we expect to maintain it at that level.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the three-hour debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes and that in the two-hour debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. Of course, that is dependent upon speakers sitting down either before or at the precise moment that the figures 11 and 10 respectively appear on the Clock of the Chamber.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Gaming Act 1968 with respect to the advertising of bingo. Under the procedures of the House, only one name may be attached to the Bill at this stage. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, has indicated his willingness to be associated with it. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Transport in London and the South East
3.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis rose to call attention to the transport problems of London and the South East; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in every debate on transport over the past seven or eight years, the script read by a succession of Conservative Ministers has been virtually the same: a litany of statistics suggesting a roseate picture of a transport system that has never been better, but, in reality, characterising a purblind and misleading approach to the essentials.
Of course, the travelling public know the truth. They experience it day in and day out, whether they are travelling by road or rail. They suffer utterly deplorable conditions. For example, frustrated drivers and passengers are obliged to sit in private cars on hopelessly congested roads and motorways; Network SouthEast and London Underground are congested, expensive and dirty, with concerns about safety and quality standards combining to represent, in comparison with our main European competitors, a very sorry picture.
All those problems were recently brought to a head when traffic virtually came to a grinding halt in the snow. British Rail experienced "the wrong sort of snow" which led to additional chaos for the

1395
commuter. Of course, it is true to say that the situation was compounded by the appalling outrages which took place at Paddington and Victoria stations and elsewhere; and by unforgivable hoax calls for which clearly no administration could be blamed. However, those distressing facts should not be allowed to deflect attention from where responsibility truly lies for the transport chaos.
The Government's transport policies in London and the South East, and indeed nationally, have been utterly confused. They have been confused in terms of refusing or failing to recognise the need for an integrated transport system, utilising the different modes of transport in a complementary way; by failing to ensure that analyses in relation to what is required are always undertaken right across the different modes; and also by failing to ensure that the overall value of any transport activities are judged by quality of life objectives.
For nearly 12 years the Government have compartmentalised their thinking in relation to transport. They have applied wholly different rules to each mode and distorted competition between them. Cars and lorries are most certainly given preferential treatment over rail so far as concerns infrastructural costs. That ignores the fact that rail is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of surface transport. It also ignores the fact that, according to the CBI, the costs borne by industry—and thus by consumers—of road congestion amount to something in the order of £15 billion a year nationally. Moreover, London and the South East, which represent the most populous part of our country, bear a very high proportion of that burden.
However, over and above all that, one has to add the cost of environmental damage—that is, increased noise and pollution and the destruction of local communities—whereby the quality of life in inner London, and also in towns and villages in the South East, is hugely impaired. There can be no doubt that that abdication of responsibility over so long a period threatens the economic well-being of our country, especially as we move towards 1992.
In London, the ideological obsessions of the Government have demolished the possibilities of real strategic planning. It is the only major city in Europe which is denied a strategic planning authority which could reconcile different travel, environmental and planning needs and thereby meet the demands of all sectors of society.
I suppose that all that is not altogether surprising, having regard to what I referred to before as "a succession of Conservative Ministers" of Transport. Indeed, since May 1979 there have been no fewer than eight Secretaries of State. That represents a shelf life of 16 months and three weeks for each of them. There have also been four Ministers of State and 11 Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, the shelf life of whom is even more limited. I suppose that we should be thankful for small mercies in that the House is pleased that at least the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has been returned to the fold.
Although it is the Opposition's contention that it is essential that we should look at the various modes of transport in the South East as a whole, for convenience in the debate I shall identify, albeit briefly, the main problems, as I see them, affecting each of the individual modes of transport in the region, although I shall not have time to deal with aviation. I deal first with railways: the Financial Times stated in an article on 23rd February:
"At bottom there were only two possible causes for the widespread collapse of BR services in this month's well-forecast cold snap: blundering incompetence on an epic scale, or inadequate investment".
The chairman of British Rail, Sir Bob Reid, went on what he called "a voyage of discovery" after taking on the full-time chairmanship last October. He came to some remarkable conclusions in relation to his original conceptions. He concluded:
"Although a big investment programme was under way in projects such as the electrification of the East Coast Main Line and works related to the Channel Tunnel, the routine refurbishment of the railways existing assets was still being neglected".
He identified outdated signalling systems and rolling stock maintenance depots falling into a state of decrepitude. He went on to say:
"If you want a modern, reliable railway, you have got to spend money".
What is needed are not huge government subsidies but for British Rail to have the freedom to borrow on the capital markets to fund new rail services. It is abundantly plain that a much higher level of investment is required, going well beyond the borrowing limit of £653 million a year. British Rail is inhibited from doing that because loans of that kind count as public sector borrowing controlled by the Treasury. Why should British Rail not be free to enter into joint ventures with the private sector, major construction companies or City firms to promote new services?
I only wish that government transport Ministers would go on a similar voyage of discovery—although in their case I see no reason why they should feel under any obligation to make a round trip; a one-way ticket would suffice. In the South East, the consequences of government policies have been less service, fewer seats, greater overcrowding, increased cancellations and inadequate investment in rolling stock and infrastructure. The average age of the geriatric rolling stock of Network SouthEast is 18 years. According to evidence given last Friday to the Cannon Street inquiry, the worst damaged coaches were more than 60 years old and did not meet international construction guidelines. How on earth can that be acceptable?
In the 1988–89 annual report of the passenger watchdog body (the Central Transport Consultative Committee) the following appeared:
"The Committee was unanimous in the view that the quality of British Rail services have been adversely affected by the reduction in subsidy and … Senior BR staff often cited this as a reason for cuts in service quality".
Despite that, the Government have set Network SouthEast a target of breaking even by 1992–93. No other railway system in a major conurbation operates

1397
on such a basis. The effect of that ideological approach is to slow down modernisation, accompanied as it is by income from property sales which have been severely hit by the recession, and the cash box is increasingly diverted into eliminating subsidy. Lower capital investment also means a less safe railway. So it is no small wonder that the quality of Network SouthEast is deteriorating rapidly. There is overcrowding, poor arrival times, longer ticket waiting times, more people inconvenienced on trains by having to stand throughout their journeys, trains becoming shabby and dirty and journeys taking much longer. Fares on average rose by about 22 per cent. between January 1989 and January 1991.
Notwithstanding all that evidence, the Government continue to assert that they are providing real help to British Rail while they phase out the PSO grant. In the end, it will fall to the consumer to pay for the investment needed—and pay through the nose.
So far as the Channel Tunnel is concerned, plans which were designed to equip Kent with 100 mph electrified Networker class trains, station improvements and other possible electrifications have been deferred. What a commentary when one considers that the French TGV will travel up to 200 mph through France right up to the Channel. What a contrast with Britain. Our trains will travel at a relative snail's pace—40 mph to 50 mph—a real case of L'escargot anglais.
The tale is similar so far as London Transport and London Underground Limited are concerned. Although it is true that the Government have increased London Transport's external financing limit for 1990–91 by £55 million and will change its 1990–91 EFL from £448 million to £510.55 million, that will self-evidently not produce an answer to London's transport problems. Demand for the tube and buses is not declining, although that was senior management's prediction. What is happening is that London Transport is cutting staff levels and train services. The inevitable result will be the generation of even less revenue and therefore more cuts in the future—a sure prescription for disaster. Special provision, apart from other investment, needs to be made for safety following the King's Cross, Charing Cross and Clapham incidents. London Underground Limited should not, in our judgment, be forced to borrow from next year's EFL to stave of its present crisis.
The truth is that the Government have been bent on an ideological mission to try to establish that British Rail can manage without subsidy. Its passengers have been treated as guinea-pigs as part of an experiment unique in the world of railway policy. The truth is that on both Network SouthEast and London Underground tight financial targets imposed by the Government (after all Network SouthEast has to become commercially profitable by 1993 and London Underground operationally profitable by the same date) are causing short-term cuts in the quantity and quality of service.
Peak hour services on the Central, Northern and Victoria Lines are to be reduced. Booking offices outside central London will in the main be closed in the evenings. Extra security introduced on the
1398
southern branch of the Northern Line in 1988 is to be withdrawn. On London Underground, safety investment and Central Line improvements only are certain to continue. Major investments have been cancelled. The reality is that the actual levels of investment for 1990–91 and 1991–92 will be considerably less than the Government have claimed.
So far as the roads are concerned, the degree of congestion is exemplified by the fact that peak hour traffic speeds in central London are now little more than 11 mph. That is a problem that extends way beyond London to other urban centres. Congestion on the M.25 is notorious. Future traffic flow projections look extremely pessimistic. The Government themselves believe that there will be road traffic increases of between 80 per cent. and 142 per cent. by 2025. The Government's responses to those problems are hopelessly flawed.
As I do not intend to enter into a statistical battle of the Somme with the Minister, let me summarise what we believe needs to happen. First, there is need for a new, directly elected strategic body responsible for co-ordinating transport in the capital. Secondly, there has to be a long-term investment programme in new cross-London rail and Underground links. Thirdly, steps must be taken to reduce the use of the private motor car. Traffic congestion and further traffic growth will make a terrifying impact on the environment, particularly with carbon dioxide emissions.
Fourthly, major action must be taken to reduce overcrowding and improve service quality on Network SouthEast and the London Underground. It is intolerable that many of the Network SouthEast lines are underused while other parts of the system are grotesquely overcrowded.
Additional trains, increased train capacity, improved signalling and the extension of some platforms to cope with peak time demand are required. Outside these periods, extra trains are needed to make the service more attractive. Extra staff are also essential. On London Underground, additional and higher capacity trains and a wide range of improvement works at stations which suffer the worst congestion are required. The Underground ticket barriers contribute to congestion and also represent a safety hazard. London's buses are becoming older and are often unserviceable. They must be given priority by increasing the number of bus lanes and bringing in more bus priority schemes such as traffic signals and bus access only to main shopping areas.
Public transport in London is worse and more expensive than in most other European capitals. That is not good enough. We must have a planned expansion of rail and tube networks. Light rail schemes should be encouraged, particularly in outer London on suburban networks and radial links. Women passengers must be given important priority in terms of transport services as regards safety, frequency and reliability. The same applies to people with mobility handicaps.
Taxis are an important part of the transport system. Insurance and safety standards of minicabs

1399
must be brought up to those of the traditional black cabs. We shall review the roads programme, bearing in mind the high cost of environmental damage. The ill-conceived red route system, imposing intolerable strains on local commerce and the London boroughs affected, should go.
We need tougher penalties and enforcement of the law to discourage illegal parking. We need steps to ensure that the provision of company cars and other related perks, such as free petrol or free private parking, are fairly taxed. That is certainly not the case at present.
We need a range of measures to restrict car use in the most congested areas, including the use of road pricing. Pedestrians must be helped through greater pedestrianisation and better facilities for crossing roads. We need a network of strategic cycle routes along the lines suggested by the London Cycling Forum.
I do not have time to engage in the argument about the importance of freight but it is critical to our economic objectives. We need to encourage better priority for essential road freight within a traffic restraint system.
I conclude on the most important note of all: the need to ensure that we make the best use of the different modes of transport within the capital and the South East. As many on both sides of the House reminded the Government during the course of recent transport legislation, the Government pay inadequate attention to the environmental consequences of their misbegotten policies at their peril, but, infinitely more important, at the peril of the communities of London and the South East. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the introduction of this subject. However, one has a feeling of déjà vu. Against a background of 30 years of dereliction in investment by governments of all persuasions, we arrive at today's situation which the noble Lord eloquently and somewhat rhetorically described to us.
That there are problems no one has ever denied. It is inevitable that any remedies we seek to put in place will take time. Time is the least of the elements available; certainly money alone cannot provide all-embracing solutions.
If there were time, I could go through the extraordinarily long catalogue of measures which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, sees as necessary and which are presumably part of the Labour Party's transport manifesto. However, what he did not and cannot say is how much it will all cost and where the money will come from. Noble Lords on his side of the House continually beg that question.
On the contrary, the present Administration have proposed some good ideas which I shall discuss in a moment. I shall not follow the noble Lord in his tirade against the railway system. I had my say about that in rather more modest form on Monday. I merely
1400
suggest that it is intolerable that South-East region commuters should have to travel under such difficult and sometimes disgusting conditions.
My concern is frankly more about roads. In considering the problem, I welcome the Goverment's intention to spend £16 billion over the next three years. The commitment has been given and I hope that my noble friend the Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will reaffirm it. Much of the £16 billion will be spent on public transport improvements in London and the South East.
I welcome many of the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Bill now in another place for their contribution to the relief of congestion particularly in London. I shall not discuss today measures contained in the Road Traffic Bill which will shortly come before your Lordships' House. I shall however wish to discuss it at some length over the next few weeks.
Within the £16 billion of government expenditure to which I have just referred, the road programme in England includes the improvement of 600 miles of existing motorway, the conversion of 175 miles of all-purpose dual carriageway, the construction of 45 miles of new motorway and the upgrading of about 1,500 miles of single carriageway. Again, much of this is in the South East. The programme includes widening between Rochester and Gillingham junctions; widening to the Frimley junction; the motorway at Winchester; the construction of the missing link from Maidstone to Ashford and so on. There are innumerable plans in progress which will give some but not total relief from the congestion which the South East sadly suffers.
I welcome very much the appointment of Mr. Alan Whitfield in my noble friend's department. He is the New Road Programme Director. In a recent talk to the all-party roads study group, he gave an indication of new thinking on how better use could be made of existing roadways. He mentioned widening, the use of central reservations and so on. The one point which I am not entirely happy about is the proposed experiment on the Chertsey-Leatherhead section of the M.25, reducing lane widths and speed. I do not believe it will be tremendously successful, but it is only an experiment.
What worries me about the roads programme is whether it is adequate. It is extensive, but there are a number of concerns. There is the question of the delivery of the programme. Even with the substantially greater funding now to be made available, it really is inadequate to deliver the programme in the 10 years promised by the former Secretaries of State, Paul Channon and Cecil Parkinson. I hope that my noble friend can say a few words about the 10-year programme. We recognise that planning difficulties exist. We have discussed them in your Lordships' House. We recognise that there are problems with planning periods and timings. The compensation factor should help there.
Huge and massive improvements could be made to the radial roads in London. There is a case too for improved orbital roads. The abandonment a year ago of the proposals in the London assessment studies left

1401
huge gaps and a vacuum. So far we have heard little about how the vacuum might be filled. That is a matter of some concern. To some people the proposals had brought an expectation of traffic relief and improvement in their quality of life. The abandonment of the studies means that those people do not know what will happen.
I have mentioned road widening and road extensions. Before anyone suggests that we shall end up with a great concrete jungle, I wish to make two points. First, it is an absolutely fanciful notion that much fright or many passengers can be transferred from road to rail. Road is the dominant transport mode in this country and will remain so.
I admit that I take the following figures available in some isolation. However, one can see that the land take from roads in West Germany accounts for a figure of 1.7 per cent. In Belgium it is 3.5 per cent. and in the Netherlands it is 2.3 per cent. In Great Britain it is only 1.2 per cent. If one considers the matter in terms of kilometres of roads to total kilometres of land, one finds that the same proportions result. On the international basis of calculation, one finds that in the South East, including Greater London, 1.9 per cent. of the land is taken up by roads and in the North-West of England 2.9 per cent. I accept that those are narrow figures; nevertheless, they reveal that there is room for further road construction.
The problem is one of population imbalance and the attraction of London and the South East for commerce and business. We should reinvigorate our efforts to encourage the internal migration of people, business, commerce, and perhaps government departments. We should certainly improve car storage and car parking in the central area. That could be achieved through planning requirements. Undoubtedly we need to improve public transport facilities which are frankly falling apart largely because of the negative attitudes the providers of public transport bring to their planning. I mentioned this matter on Monday; I repeat it today. Traffic management schemes are available and a host of new efforts could be brought to bear to make a much better fist of what is a very indifferent service.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for introducing this debate on the transport problems of London and the South East. By my reckoning it is the ninth debate on one or other aspect of this subject to be held in Parliament in the past two years. The frequency with which the issue is debated reflects the continued concern of Members of both Houses about the very serious transport problems in this part of the country.
I propose in my remarks to concentrate on the problems in London. The sobering fact is that, unless radical solutions are devised and put in hand quickly, the present transport congestion and delays in the capital could grow far worse within the next decade. It is estimated that by the year 2001 there could be an increase or at least 20 per cent. in the number of cars used in the capital and an equivalent increase in the
1402
demand for public transport. It is difficult to visualize how the already overcrowded roads and the already over-utilized public transport services could cope with such a situation.
While it cannot be denied that certain measures have been taken to extend the rail and Underground facilities serving the capital, and it is intended to introduce the so-called "red routes" to speed up traffic on selected priority roads, these measures do not go nearly far enough to cope with the problem. A major difficulty is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has so effectively emphasised, there still does not appear to be an overall strategy for dealing with London's transport problem. There are a number of piecemeal measures, some relatively large, some smaller, which are introduced from time to time. The situation is complicated by the large number of different authorities involved in transport in London. Apart from the 32 separate London boroughs, there are some eight additional authorities including various government departments. It is impossible to visualize how a co-ordinated approach can be applied in such a situation.
There is an essential inter-relationship between the various modes of transport and the skill is to find the right balance between them. At present the balance has been tilted too far in the direction of the motor vehicle. The need is to persuade more people not to bring their cars into London and to use public transport instead. But this is difficult to achieve as public transport facilities are already generally overcrowded and considered to be unreliable.
Let me start with the Underground. There is little doubt that an improved, more efficient, more reliable, less crowded Underground system could do much to syphon off road traffic. We are continually being reminded that there was a sudden upsurge in use of the Underground from 1985 onwards. How long have we to wait before this is reflected in increased facilities? This is not just a question of adding new lines, which necessarily takes a great deal of time and capital expenditure. The permanent way of the existing lines has suffered from years of neglect. There has not been a carefully thought-out policy for asset replacement and renewal. Such a policy could considerably increase the capacity of the system and also its safety, which has been a matter of such concern following the King's Cross disaster. Rolling stock and stations need refurbishment. Closed-circuit TV systems need to be installed for greater security.
Of course these developments would cost money—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, emphasised that—perhaps up to 50 per cent. more than is presently being spent each year. But this would be entirely justified expenditure. It would be vastly less than the cost of congestion as estimated by the CBI and said to amount to no less than £10 billion per annum in London and the South East.
A similar approach is necessary with respect to the buses. Here the major problem arises from traffic congestion on the roads. Unless there can be better control of parking and some diminution in the number of cars coming into the capital, the buses will

1403
not be able to perform their task. Better control of parking can be achieved only by having more people doing the job. Again, that extra expenditure could be justified on the basis of social benefit. Reducing the number of cars coming into the capital can be achieved only by offering an effective public transport alternative and at the same time by some measure of disincentive. Road pricing has often been debated and should be looked at again, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned.
As with the Underground, so with the buses. An effective asset replacement policy needs to be introduced. There are many buses on the roads today which have exceeded their acceptable timespan. A more regular upgrading of the bus fleet would make for greater comfort, efficiency and safety. It would also give encouragement to the manufacturers to devise new models and penetrate export markets with greater confidence.
Other desirable measures would be the installation of video cameras on all buses, which could have the effect of reducing vandalism and petty crime. While they would be costly to install their payback would be a significant reduction in repair costs.
The problem which assails all intending bus passengers is to know when the next bus is coming. There is a need for passenger information at bus stops. That could be similar to the information provided at many Underground stations. It would advise passengers of the delays to be expected in the arrival of buses travelling in different directions. I understand that trials which have been carried out of such a system have been enormously welcomed by passengers. Finally, work must continue to make buses more accessible to people with disabilities.
One of the factors contributing to road congestion is coach traffic. Coaches provide an important transport service and benefit large numbers of people who wish to move around at relatively low cost and with some degree of flexibility. Nevertheless, the tendency of coach operators in London to park at will and to take on and discharge passengers at any point convenient to them adds seriously to traffic congestion. Some greater degree of regulation is essential if that particular traffic problem is not to become worse.
An additional problem connected with coach traffic is the Victoria coach station. It is the only coach station in London and was never designed for the purpose. I must declare an interest here because I am chairman of the local residents' association. The existence of the coach station in an already congested area is causing serious and continuing difficulties. There have been many proposals either to move the station elsewhere or to diminish its size. So far all the proposals have come to nought. The result is that the coaches overflow into residential streets, causing serious environmental disadvantage.
London Transport, which operates the coach station, has now decided to refurbish it at a cost of some £4 million. That will no doubt provide better
1404
facilities for passengers, but it will almost certainly lead to increased coach traffic in the surrounding residential streets. Some limit must be imposed on the coaches' use of those residential streets. I know that Westminster council is studying the problem and it is to be hoped that it will soon take appropriate action.
To sum up, London's transport problem, which is already serious, could get far worse in the next decade and beyond. The measures so far taken to deal with the issue are inadequate. Above all, they lack co-ordination. A more comprehensive and imaginative scheme is required to diminish the number of cars coming into London and to increase and improve public transport facilities. The cost involved could be saved many times over in economic and social benefit.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this is a sad little debate. I am as gloomy as was my noble friend. I noted that even the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who loves the internal combustion engine and its fast-rolling wheels, fell into despair when he discussed public transport. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was equally depressed, but at least he gave us some practical ideas for some immediate remedies as well as looking at the strategic position as a whole.
A variety of ills as well as a variety of benefits confronts the London citizen of today. One of the grosser ills, alongside the mortgage, the noise, the pollution and the poll tax (unless he lives in a couple of favoured areas), is the daily struggle to get to work and then to get home again. It is surprising how long it took for that grievance to enter the political arena. I always thought that it should be there, and there was a time when I madly contemplated running for election on that single issue—"vote for the commuter's best friend". However, I lacked the nerve and left the subject to gloomy conversations and furious letters to local newspapers.
Today we have before us, for the ninth time, the plight of the millions who live in and around this enormous capital and who have to earn their daily bread by a daily penance. Even that is becoming harder as the SouthEast is now in the forefront of the rise in unemployment.
Nobody knows today how long a journey will take, even without the bomb scares. Diligent workers may arrive late, tired and frayed before they start their day's work. As their journeys are more costly than anywhere else in the kingdom, and possibly most places in Europe, their employers have to pay them more in wages. In a time of recession that may be a contributory cause of employers in the service industry cutting down on staff or closing their businesses.
The travel problem might have been tackled more successfully in the days of the Thatcher economic miracle than it could be now. However, in those days there was little action, but many studies. Mr. Ridley set up four in 1984 at a cost of £10 million. But seven years later it is no easier to move around London and the environment is no better. The trouble has been that too many people in positions of power have made

1405
a basic assumption that everybody must be able to drive everywhere at any time. So they have tried to identify ways of relieving congestion by road building, road widening, road tunnels, bridges, underpasses, and flyovers. The contribution that has to be made by better public transport was disregarded for a time by the eminent consultants.
However, the citizens of London, regardless of their party loyalties, set up pressure groups and a series of societies making expert studies of traffic around London. One of these days they may produce a Napoleon of Notting Hill. Those people made it clear that the road options would not work and last year Mr. Parkinson wisely dropped them—or was obliged to drop them. However, as there has been no significant advance in public transport in 1991 the situation, is worse than it was in Mr. Ridley's day.
Mr. Channon, however, called for a rail study and a report was published in 1989. The report's chart outlined in red all the routes on Network SouthEast and the Underground on which there was not just overcrowding but excessive overcrowding. Noble Lords may wonder what constitutes non-excessive overcrowding. It seems that tolerable overcrowding only occurs when there is only one person standing for every one person sitting on an Underground train. It is all right in a modern South-East network carriage if there are only 35 passengers standing and they do not have to stand for more than 20 minutes. Most of the radial routes in Greater London were outside those modest standards and were coloured red on the chart: unacceptable overcrowding.
A number of options were provided for remedial action: extension to the Jubilee Line, an east-west crosslink joining St. Marylebone with Liverpool Street and a new Chelsea to Hackney underground line. I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made with those schemes. I understand that during the next 12 months the Bill for the Jubilee Line will be passed and the line should be working by 1996. That is hardly rapid relief. However, it seems that the east-west crosslink will be even slower to appear. The Bill is expected late this year—one year after Mr. Parkinson promised it—and with luck the trains may be rolling before the end of the millenium.
For the Chelsea to Hackney line the prospects are less certain than they were. Last month the line was safeguarded, but that is all. There is no timetable. It seems that everything depends on whether the money can be found. So I must ask: will it ever be built? Can the Minister say what its future will be? After all, the Department of Transport, British Rail, London Transport and London Underground in their joint report said that a package of that sort was essential if the worst overcrowding were to be ended. Even if all that goes ahead, according to the most optimistic timetable there will still be grotesque and dangerous overcrowding until the end of the century.
The road engineers thought that the rail developments in prospect would do no more than ease the journeys of existing passengers. They did not think that they would be sufficient to persuade car commuters to take to rail. They are probably right.
1406
The present rail system, which carries three-quarters of the commuters into London, will need not just the uplift that is promised but a transformation if the workers of London are to get to their work in time and reasonable comfort every day.
Yet the fact is that there is no shortage of rail projects which together could end all the overcrowding and also do much to clear the congestion from the roads. Alas, the political will is not there. As the central London rail report makes clear, government policy is to approve investment in railways where it will earn a commercial return. The Government believe that the best returns on capital should be on those schemes which best meet the needs of passengers as assured by their willingness to pay for them. Only in rare cases will the Government be convinced that there are sufficient non-user benefits to justify a grant. In other words, the passenger, the man or woman travelling between home and work, will have to pay much more for his fares if there is to be some kind of final relief for the present situation.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the problem demands strategic planning and long-term investment. Traffic and travel problems are strangling the South East. If the Government are not warned by the sight and consequences of overcrowding and congestion they will have to pay a political price for their ideological blindness, mismanagement, lethargy before a soluble problem and lack of concern for the hard-working people of the South East.
3.55 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I start by making my usual declaration of interest: I am in receipt of a small pension from British Rail. For seven years I was Assistant Public Relations Publicity Officer at Waterloo Station dealing with the Southern Region (as it was then). I travel every day on Network SouthEast and every day on London Underground. Sometimes I wonder whether I travel on a completely different set of Underground trains and Network SouthEast trains than do other noble Lords.
I did not attend the debate last Monday but I understand that one noble Lord who happens to live in the South East complained about snow. He said that there were only two or three inches of it. I live just outside Aldershot and as a matter of interest at that time I took a steel rule and measured the snow. When I went to bed there was no snow on my car roof but when I got up in the morning three inches of snow had fallen and there were up to five inches of snow in the garden. That is quite a difference.
At the Underground stations one can see a train which comes in crowded and people push themselves on board. If one walks to one end of the platform one can get on an Underground train and usually find a seat. If one cannot do so, one can wait for the next train, which will probably be almost empty. The fact remains that people leave their work at a certain time and want to catch a particular train. They know that if they travel in a certain compartment they will stop near the exit. When the train stops they all rush out and cram the escalators and passageways. If, for

1407
example, they arrive at Waterloo, they go to the same platform and pour themselves on to the same train. If only they would be willing to wait for just a short time, the following train would probably get them to their destination just a few minutes later and they would have been able to travel in comfort.
I admit that I am lucky because I do not have to travel in the morning rush-hour. That is my luck. But one cannot blame British Rail for overcrowding. It is not British Rail's fault. It is the responsibility of the employers in London who want all their workers in their offices and factories at one and the same time. What is British Rail expected to do? One cannot have longer trains on Southern Region because many of the platforms are not long enough. If one were to put on longer trains, filling up the first half and then moving the train up to fill the second half, it would delay them for far too long.
If one looks at the railroad line map one will see outside most stations of British Rail Southern Region that there are masses of points, cross-overs and so on. In order to extend the platform the track would have to be realigned, which would be very expensive. I sometimes think that if there were a survey which asked the average traveller on Network SouthEast what his ideal train service would be, he would reply, "Well, I should like to get to the station in the morning and catch my train. I should like that train to run non-stop from my station to a London terminus". What would he say in the evening? "I wish to get on my train at Waterloo. I want it to run non-stop to my home station".
Mention has been made of the south coast route. I received communications from people who complained that unless Ashford International Station is built, they will lose business and people will make unnecessary journeys. When I was with British Rail we undertook a survey about the south coast route. We asked people, "Do you use it?" If the answer was yes, that was fine. If not, we asked, "Why not?" The most important question was, "Do you want to retain the south coast route?" The vast majority said, "Yes". The catch question was, "Why?" The answer was, "For when my car is off the road". I do not joke. People wanted a rail system along the south coast for those times when the car was off the road or the wife or husband was using it. One cannot run such a rail system. The cost would be prohibitive.
I have referred to overcrowding and whose fault it is. With regard to filth on the trains, BR does not employ one single person to throw litter on trains or concourses. The people who do so are the passengers. They are no longer called passengers; they are customers. It is the customers who make the mess, not British Rail. Yet everyone complains about British Rail. They say, "British Rail crams us on trains under conditions which would be illegal if we were cattle". They are not cattle; they are meant to be thinking people. If they do not like the conditions, let them take an earlier train or even a later train. It is up to them. One cannot blame British Rail for every single ill.
1408
If one wishes to blame the Government, I believe that there is one single factor involved. Investment has not been forthcoming. If we do not receive investment, the system closes down. My home station is often closed in the late evening. That is a danger especially for lady passengers. If there are no taxis and they do not have a car, they do not even have the satisfaction of knowing that there will be a British Rail employee present to look after them.
On Monday a noble Lord who is not present—I shall not mention his name—said quite casually that British Rail staff are disloyal. I do not believe that. It may happen on some lines; but on the line from the coast through Basingstoke to London the staff are kind, thoughtful and courteous. There was a hold-up the other day. The excuses are always met with a grin. The reason why I arrived late in your Lordships' House was that we were stuck outside Clapham Junction because the police had switched off the current. They had lost one of their prisoners and were trying to find him. Everyone said, "That's a new excuse for British Rail"—but it happened to be true.
There was reference in the papers today to the fact that people wanted to open some of the lines closed during the Beeching axe. It sounds lovely in theory. But why were those lines cut? It was because they were uneconomic and did not have the passengers or freight to make them viable. One must remember such factors.
There has been reference, quite rightly, to the use of old stock, which is wrong. I do not blame British Rail for that. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the coaches in one of the accidents which were badly damaged were all old stock. I refer your Lordships to an accident which took place at Eltham Well Hall. The train came off the rails. It was being driven too fast on a curve. I was there all night looking after the press. The front and rear bogies had sheared off a coach; the shaft was massive. The wheel had gone. But the coach was sitting there. I showed the journalists one end of the coach: one window only was broken. It was a modern coach of modern construction with crumple-free zones and so on. The next day the press used photographs and stated, "This stock is wonderful".
Finally, in comparing southern England with the Continent, one must remember that we have a short route with many stations, thousands of points and lines all over the place. In France or Germany one can travel in a straight line. Of course trains can reach speeds of 200 kilometres per hour. In England we cannot do so unless we build a straight track. If we did that British Rail trains would run just as fast as the French trains.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in answering a Question on Thursday of last week about damage to London Transport and London Underground in particular by the financial targets enforced on them by the present Government, the Minister said in effect that it was all a matter for London Underground management and hardly anything to do with the Government. But this

1409
Government took over control of London Transport by the London Regional Transport Act of 1984. The Government appoint the directors. They lay down limits for both capital and current expenditure and have power under the Act to give directions to the enterprise on all manner of subjects. So, whatever else may be the case, it is not for the Government to give orders to London Transport and then blame the resulting damage on the management which is merely trying to carry out the orders that it is given.
As a result of such interference by the Government with London Transport since 1984, it has, frankly, been reduced to a state of disruption and poor services such as has not existed in my memory at any time between 1920 and 1984. It did not exist even in the 1940–1944 Blitz years—and I speak as someone who has travelled on the system since 1917.
The financial cuts have led to acute undermanning and staff shortage throughout the enterprise. Staff shortage in turn has led to failures of maintenance, chronic delays, dangerous overcrowding and not merely risk of accidents but actual accidents on the Underground. Government funding for future capital investment has been increased. However, it is the cut in current expenditure and current grants which is damaging the services. As recently as 1987 the operating loss covered by grants to London Underground was £288 million a year. In 1989 it was announced that this was going to be turned into a profit by 1993–94. The management is now struggling by cutting staff to break even by the end of the present year.
Total LRT staff stood at 56,600 in 1984; and services, including maintenance, were reasonably adequate at that time. By December 1987, staff numbers had been cut to 42,800 and the troubles began A month ago London Underground announced another drop of 1,000 designed to meet present financial targets in spite of all the promises made after the King's Cross fire and the Fennell Report. At the end of the debate perhaps the Minister will say what are the latest staff figures as regards London Underground.
The results of that undermanning are failures of maintenance and signalling, cancellations, delays and incidents which we are all suffering and which are announced almost daily, although inaudibly, by the loudspeakers on the Underground. Driver-only buses and trains are contributing to the further lengthening of journey times.
For all those reasons, in my experience, journeys on the Underground which from 1920 to 1984 took 30 minutes now take 45 minutes. Journeys which used to take 45 minutes now take one hour or more. Of course for that service, we pay higher fares.
Because 2.5 million people use London Underground every day, that slowdown represents an enormous loss of working time to the public in the capital. Indeed, that loss illustrates what I find to be the rather glaring illumination of the double standards which this Government apply to private and public transport. When the department's economists are
1410
assessing whether or not to build a motorway, they work out the time spent by the expected travellers. The larger the income of those people, the greater is the argument for the motorway. However, when it comes to settling the right financial targets for London Underground, I strongly suspect that nobody takes into account the loss of time of 2.5 million people travelling on it every day. If I am wrong about that, I shall be glad to be told so by the Minister. However, that is how it appears to me.
The main economic case for a revenue subsidy to London Underground rests squarely on the fact that the existence of the Underground prevents congestion on the surface which would make roads absolutely impassable. In that way, the Underground gives a huge benefit to the road user for which those road users do not pay. That is a further sound economic argument for a long term grant.
Indeed, that is why the electric railways of Paris enjoy a revenue subsidy of £500 million per year. That covers 60 per cent. of the current costs of the undertaking, leaving only 40 per cent to he covered by receipts from fares. As a result, Paris has a system which is now far better than ours and is a considerable national asset and tourist attraction.
On top of all that, the cuts in London Regional Transport staff due to the Government's financial targets are beginning to pose a serious risk to safety on the Underground. I assure the Minister, having experienced it, that it is no fun waiting on a stationary overcrowded tube train in a tunnel with no idea how long one is going to be there or why one is there—and that is putting it mildly. In November 1987 the Fennell Report on the King's Cross fire found that the fire was due to lack of maintenance on the escalators. The report said:
"when the budget for escalator cleaning was reduced, the effects were not fully considered at the appropriate level".
The lift and escalator engineer said that he did not succeed in monitoring escalator cleaning standards to his satisfaction nor did he have enough staff to do so. That was in 1987. A fortnight ago a crowded Central Line train near Liverpool Street caught fire. It stopped in the tunnel with 500 people aboard for five hours before the passengers escaped. Some of them went to hospital. Of course, we do not yet know whether that fire was due to lack of maintenance on the train or the track or to something else. I imagine that before long we shall be told what was the cause.
In view of that, it is not very reassuring for the 2.5 million people who travel weekly or daily on the Underground to learn that, despite that further incident, the Underground management, in its efforts to save manpower and meet the Government's financial targets, has sent a circular to the staff saying that in future, when driver-only trains catch fire in tunnels, the rescue of passengers must be organised by the passengers themselves because savings are being made by doing away with guards. The Minister did not deny the existence of that circular when I asked him about it on Thursday of last week. Perhaps he can confirm the existence of that circular.

1411
According to the Financial Times of 27th February the circular states also that, in the case of fire or smoke in driver-only trains or in tunnels, drivers will be told to select a responsible passenger and leave the remaining passengers under his care. The responsible passenger will be told also "how and when to discharge tractive currents using the tunnel telephone lines". If that system is put into force, the Government will bear a very heavy responsibility if there are serious accidents in the future.
There is a growing anxiety on the Underground, among both passengers and staff, that the higher priority given to safety after the Fennell Report is now being relaxed in order to save money and staff. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is true. Also, is it true that another cut of 1,000 Underground staff is to be made in the present year? Is it true that orders for improved Central Line trains and the Jubilee Line extension have been postponed again for purely financial reasons? Until those questions are satisfactorily answered, more and more people will conclude that this Government are almost solely interested in saving money and that better service for the public comes practically nowhere in their priorities.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the problems of transport in London and the South East. It was a great pleasure to listen to him. When I first came to your Lordships' House I was told to put a smile in the voice. He did just that; there was a smile in the voice throughout his speech. Also, it was only at minute 15 that he casually mentioned buses. Perhaps the noble Lord looked at his list of speakers and decided that all aspects of transport would be catered for. I am sure that in his winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will do just that.
Before I speak on the situation of buses, I wish to make a few remarks to put the matter in context. Recent disruptions to public transport in the South East caused by weather and terrorist activities have highlighted public and business reliance on transport. Of course, it is all too easy to highlight the problems and ignore some of the significant achievements.
Demand for transport in the South East is greater than elsewhere in the United Kingdom; for example, three quarters of the demand for United Kingdom international air travel originates in the South East. More people are moved in and out of London by train and road than in any other city in the country. The continued growth of the South East as a centre for business and leisure will place even greater demands on transport. In addition, the expected growth in car ownership—and the United Kingdom has a lower car ownership per head of population than many of our compatible neighbours in Europe—means that grave problems lie ahead. That is not very good news. More cars mean greater environmental pollution as a result of congestion.
1412
However, buses remain the only under-utilised form of public transport. Suburban trains and the Underground are suffering from gross overloading, which has been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Jay, and that is totally intolerable. But there is still space on buses.
I recall remarks made by the late Baroness Hornsby-Smith, who represented a constituency in North Kent for many years. Also, I am sad not to see the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the Front Bench opposite, who I am sure would agree with me. North Kent probably suffers worse from crush loading.
Journeys are viable only if the buses can move so more space has to be given to them. Those special lanes must be cleared and rather nasty penalties should be imposed. One sympathises with the milk float and other essential delivery vans, but surely they can be scheduled not to operate in bus lanes at peak hours.
I should like to mention one or two platitudinous phrases, in almost staccato sentences as they stand by themselves. Bus routes are capable of rapid expansion for a nominal cost, and they are the only form of public passenger transport which has no control of its track. Nevertheless, buses pay their way, as was confirmed by the right honourable Nigel Lawson when Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Again, buses are kinder to the environment. I know it was said that trains are kind, too, but buses are kinder than cars. During 1989–90, which are the last figures available, 1.6 billion passengers travelled in London and the South East. That was an increase rather than a decrease over the rest of the country.
If we give buses greater priority, they must become more reliable; and reliability is the key factor in encouraging people to use public transport. The increased use of buses would enable operators to invest in more attractive and, to use a very modern term, user-friendly buses. Given the choice between a modern reliable and moving bus or the congestion and stress of a car in traffic, I am sure that many people would leave their cars at home. In turn, car driving could once again become a pleasurable activity. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lucas will agree with that. Many of your Lordships must travel here by train, and feel happier and more content than if you had been sitting in a traffic jam.
Clearly the demand for transport in the South East is growing. Therefore we need to ensure that all modes play a full part. It seems a pity to prevent one mode—the bus —from doing its job. Let us give priority to the important part of transport. Let us remember that buses still carry 80 per cent. of all passengers who use public transport. That 80 per cent. merits special consideration.

The Bus and Coach Council has produced an excellent document called Buses mean Business, which encourages local authorities to give greater priority to buses. This was firmly backed by the Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman, in another place as recently as 6th

1413
February. May London continue with this successful tendering process; it has brought competition and sharpened up its own operations.
Lastly on buses, I should like to state that in London it is sociable for citizens of all walks of life to use buses. You are not a non-U person if you do catch a bus, but out of London that is not so. So let us get over these hang-ups which appear in all walks of life. But that means that we have to get the timetables ready. Operators, local authorities and publishers must tell us when the buses run. With more people travelling on buses costs will come down.
At this point, I should quietly sit down, but I have been asked to mention another point to do with rail. East Sussex County Council is still rather concerned about the line from Hastings to Ashford and competition with the Channel Tunnel. I thought that the Channel Tunnel was not in the spirit of this debate, but other noble Lords have mentioned it. I have sent my noble friend a missive, which I am sure he does not have time to answer today. But perhaps he could write to me or I will ask a suitable Question for Written Answer about the upgrading and electrification of the Hastings to Ashford line, so that East Sussex can compete. Hastings is still a very poor relation and it, and other parts of East Sussex, have a very good point.
I welcome the speaker who will follow me, because one happy day last summer I was crossing the forecourt of Victoria station and was waved to by a lady in a very pretty frock. It made my day to see the Lord Lieutenant of Greater London sitting on a bus.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord ended his speech with a compliment because I cannot say nice things in return about his buses. Every time we debate this subject everybody grinds on about his own interest, so I shall come back to mine.
I wonder how your Lordships came to this House today. To judge by the knocking of the car, everybody came by bus or train, or some walked or cycled, and nobody seems to have driven here. Therefore I am rather mystified as to why the car park outside always seems to be full of cars. They must belong to the staff whom we pay so well.
We must realise that the car is with us and it gives pleasure. I happen to be of the generation who remembers when we did not have cars, when it took a day to go from where I live in Fulham to Orpington in order to visit an aunt in the country, as we called it. I am delighted that the car provides me with an opportunity to see my brother and my other relatives and friends easily because even now the railway, I am sorry to say, is not going to make the journey easy.
My noble friend on the Front Bench covered everything so marvellously, as did subsequent speakers, that I shall just give my opinion. Bus travel at the moment is hopeless. I am not quite sure why this is but I suspect that funds were not given to London Transport. A one-man system just does not work. It causes congestion. If there is danger—and I have
1414
neighbours who have been in dangerous situations on buses at night—the driver cannot leave the driving seat. Besides, look at the other danger in all this. If the driver has a heart attack, there is only him.
I am proud to be a Londoner and I still live in the borough I was born in. It is a jolly good borough. We do not have a good football team, but you cannot have everything. We have always used buses and the Underground. But half my neighbours now do not. Why? First, they find the bus dangerous to get in, the steps are extraordinarily high, and some of them are old and they cannot risk it. They are definitely frightened of the Underground—there is no question about that—because of the crime. It is not only the waiting in the tunnels. Again, where are the people to manage? We are always saving on people. When I used the Underground every day you had porters on the platform. Nowadays if something goes wrong there is nobody to go to. We have to put it in order if we want people to use it.
Then again let us look at the question of roads. It is not the car that causes congestion; it is the enormous lorries. No other capital city in the world allows great articulated lorries to go through the centre. I did my own bit of research coming to the House in a car—a hired car, which I have to pay for. I was sitting on the Embankment, and for every car there were three lorries.
Where were these lorries going? I had an example this morning outside my own house. There was an enormous articulated lorry. He was stuck. He could not move. He could not go forward because of roadworks in the road. First the Gas Board dig it up, and then the Electricity Board dig it up, then British Telecom dig it up. Now I believe it is the sewers' turn. So the road is filled up. The man cannot move one way and he cannot move the other way. But the point is that he was trying to get down to a building site on the river. He had come all the way from Sweden. From Sweden! We have a Dutch company building Hammersmith Broadway, and now they have to bring the articles to be used from Sweden. You see, my Lords, if you did not already know, I am no European. We create a lot of this traffic on the roads because we do not utilise our own industries in the way they should be utilised.
The freight must be on the rail. There is no question about that. I helped to produce one of the original Labour Party plans. It is always useful to look back to see how far we have progressed. Well, we have not had a government to progress with since this one. Each plan dealing with transport always stated that it must be an alliance of road and rail. There is no other way to work. The heavy freight must go on the rail.
Now let us look at the stations we have in London. I would advise your Lordships to avoid Liverpool Street. If you actually have to go there, it is exactly like crossing a building site. It is slightly worse than parts of London docklands, and that is saying something. As I want the Olympics here in the year 2000 I hope they are going to sort it out.

1415
What do you want a station for? A station has a simple function. You go there as a passenger, you want a train to get on, you may want a few seats for waiting and you do not want to wait too long. But now, because they want to make money, they are creating shops. When you enter Euston you have to walk about a quarter of a mile to get to a train. There are no porters to help you with your luggage. You cannot get the trolleys up and down the stairs. I do not know what brainwave they had there. Now at Liverpool Street I have been taken across on a trolley because there is no other way to get across. Again we are going to have shops at Waterloo. I speak with some feeling about Charing Cross. I had a small office behind Charing Cross. Charing Cross was practically closed while the building group, Greycoat, actually rebuilt Charing Cross and put in shops. That is not what railway stations are for.
There are two sorts of people that I have got it in for. First, there are the people who carry the heavy freight, the articulated lorries, and, by golly, the property developers. Why complain if a lot of people have to come into London when the only thing that has been built in the city for years now has been offices? Offices, offices, and more offices. They evidently get so much money out of them that they can let them stand empty. Therefore, we have to look at several other aspects when we look at congestion.
I wonder why British Rail had to have those expensive advertisements on television. It is marvellous to spend millions on telling us how lovely it is, but we do not have any option if we want to go anywhere. Why bother to advertise a monopoly? I have never understood that. In the old days too the people at the top came from the bottom, and they understood things. They were not accountants, business managers or PR men. They were people actually who understood transport. That is what we have to get back to; a pride in our transport.
At the moment it is not much good telling us not to use the car because people will use a car as they cannot spend the time, or do not want to run the risk of the danger, or they do not want the discomfort of travelling on public transport. I would make developers pay a much larger contribution for everything they run for their transport costs. I would tax all heavy vehicles very heavily.
I quote now from a 1974 booklet of the Labour Party:
"The energy crisis has underlined our objective to move as much traffic as possible from road to rail and to water".
We still are not using the Thames enough. There are ways of curing the situation, but the transport system and the roads must be funded properly and for the right reasons, not merely to make shareholders richer.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, as a commuter of some 60 years, mainly on routes through the South East of London, I feel it is rather necessary that I should speak in the debate. The last time I took part in a similar debate was on 2nd May 1947, nearly 44
1416
years ago. It took place in this Chamber, then temporarily another place. The debate was led by Ashley Bramall, then MP for Bexley, and the subject was gross overcrowding on trains and delays.
I have a press cutting here from the Daily Mirror. The headline reads
"MP says packed trains twisted his figure, made him [stand] like the stork".
I am afraid that I made that remark.
Here we are today, all over again, debating the same issue. Travelling conditions are not much changed. One big change, however, is the cost. Forty-four years ago the cheap day fare was is 2½d; now it is £2.40. The trains then consisted of single compartments. Now we have larger compartments. But still overcrowding exists. Although attacks, mainly on women, have highlighted the danger of single compartments, many trains still have them. On Monday I had to get in one simply to obtain a seat. It was the only seat available. When are these ancient coaches to be taken out of use? Far too many are in operation.
We are told that improvements are to be made to rolling stock. That appears to be in the distant future. There have been some improvements to stations. However, the staffing situation is worse. Many stations have few or no staff on duty after around 6.30 in the evening. That can be a serious matter.
Charing Cross station has been improved. There are seats on platforms. But there is no seating on the concourse. And it is on the concourse that one must wait when there are delays for one never knows from which platform the train will depart. I used to sit on rubbish bins. They were quite comfortable, having soft rubber on top. Unfortunately, they were recently removed in light of the IRA chaos.
For older people it is no joke standing in a large crowd. The situation is worse when a train arrives. A mass of people try to alight and a larger mass try to get into the train. Overcrowding has become a way of life for the majority of London workers. With extensive office building taking place, including building over many London stations such as Charing Cross, the situation is likely to become worse.
The effect of strain on individual health can be great. It impairs working efficiency and may cause problems at home. Only this week a certain lady I know said that her husband had come home and complained bitterly that he could not stand it any more and intended to pack it in. She reminded him, somewhat forcefully, that he was not the only one involved; most people who have to travel to work experience the same problem.
The effects on health and efficiency at work should be considered. One stands in a crowded train for at least half an hour, races to one's office and attempts to work, and when night comes one returns home in worse conditions than when one set out that morning. It is a matter which needs serious consideration.
Longer trains and platforms are promised. The question is: when? In passing I note that according to the Guardian on Monday, a possible item for the Tory election manifesto is a scheme whereby vouchers will be given for delays on trains or industrial action on

1417
railways. That is no answer to the problem. It is absolute nonsense. In regard to the Dartford area I suggest that a tube extension to Lewisham or possibly Hither Green would make an enormous difference to the overcrowding, in trains and at stations. Another solution is to speed up platform extensions and to allow longer trains, together with the provision of modern rolling stock.
All that will involve considerable financial expenditure. That has already been mentioned, and we must face up to it. Shall we stand still and do nothing? The answer will not be found in privatisation. Railways are a national asset and must remain so. Let us face the facts. We have spent, quite rightly, millions of pounds to fight another war. No questions are asked about that. Why cannot we, the people, put our resources towards funding the necessary works to make our transport facilities adequate for our needs and deal with the matter with the same single-minded approach we gave to the war? There is no other way of dealing with the problem. We must spend the money; we must improve our travel services.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I begin this afternoon by declaring an interest in that I am a member of the board of British Rail (Southern). It is an unusual system of boards within British Rail. It is purely an advisory body acting as a link between the operating executive on the one hand and the local authorities and—dare I say it?—the paying public on the other. Therefore I shall confine my remarks to railway matters, and more specifically to Network SouthEast.
Over the past few weeks British Rail has taken a great deal of criticism and some of it—it has to be said —was justified. I should like first to deal with the problems that ensued from the terrorist bombs and hoaxes. The size of the mainline stations and the extent of passageways, subways and offices, means that searches take something over an hour to complete, and resources do not allow all 14 termini to be searched simultaneously. As noble Lords will be aware, a number of security measures have been taken including the removal of litter bins, the sealing of post-boxes and the closure of left luggage lockers and offices. Following reopening of stations, service disruption is extensive and inevitable. However, if passenger safety is to continue to be given priority, little can be done to prevent that.
Regarding the vexed question of the weather, contrary to popular public opinion—and, I have to admit, the experience of some noble Lords—the whole British Rail network did not collapse between 7th and 10th February. A limited, albeit sometimes severely limited, service operated on most routes. The real villain of the piece is the system of electrification—known as third-rail electrification—and the method of air-cooling. There are three main reasons why the majority of continental systems operate so much better than we do in adverse weather.
First, such conditions are for them much more the norm and for us the exception. Secondly, they use overhead electrification. The third rail system was
1418
introduced in the South-East in 1915 and is a historical millstone. By definition having the source of power at ground level must make it more susceptible to adverse weather. However the cost of converting the Southern Region alone to overhead electrification would be around £1.25 million per route mile. That is estimated to be in the region of £1.75 billion overall. A figure of such magnitude to convert the entire system within the network cannot seriously be considered.
Thirdly, design problems exist which result in snow damaging traction motors and sliding-door mechanisms. Solutions have been found. British Rail is in the process of undertaking a review of those aspects, including the cost of the necessary modifications. Although I do not suppose it provides much comfort to noble Lords, Parisians suffered the same breakdown of services during the recent bad weather when powdery snow entering the electronic control gear of suburban trains caused severe damage and disruption.
I should like to draw attention to the more general issues concerning British Rail in the South East. The demands for its services are greater than ever. In excess of 2 million journeys are undertaken each week. Slightly under half a million commuters travel to central London each day by British Rail. That is the highest number ever recorded. Each and every passenger has a right to expect his or her train to be reliable, punctual, clean and to have the necessary capacity.
I shall deal with each of those four points in turn. As regards reliability, British Rail's target is for 99 per cent. of train services to be run. In 1989–90, the last year for which statistics are available, only 96 per cent. ran. That is clearly not good enough and British Rail accepts that. On the question of punctuality, British Rail aims to ensure that 90 per cent. of its trains arrive within five minutes of the scheduled time. My own view is that that 90 per cent. is itself too low. Be that as it may, the 1989–90 statistics show that that 90 per cent. was achieved.
As regards cleaning, all trains should be washed outside daily. In 1989–90, only 70 per cent. of that target was achieved. But that was mainly due to water shortage. At the request of the Kent and Sussex water authorities, British Rail reduced washing to an absolute minimum. Indeed washing equipment was not used for over one year. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said earlier in the debate that not all the arrows can be pointed in British Rail's direction. There are many mitigating circumstances.
Concerning capacity, the situation is less satisfactory. In 1989–90, capacity targets were exceeded by 3.5 per cent. which means that far too many people did not get seats on their journeys. However, British Rail has constructive proposals for dealing with this problem with the introduction of its new networker service. This train in theory, and it should do so in practice, offers a 10 per cent. increase in capacity while using 25 per cent. less energy and costing 15 per cent. less to maintain. By 1996 it is planned that 1,794 networker coaches should be in operation; in other

1419
words, 25 per cent. of the total fleet. In addition British Rail is planning to complete the CrossRail and Thameslink Metro by 1998. As your Lordships may know, CrossRail will be a tunnel under central London between Paddington and Liverpool Street, linking services from Aylesbury, Reading and Heathrow in the West, to Southend in the East.
That will result in major time-saving benefits to passengers and also relieve congestion on the Underground and roads such as the Cromwell Road. The Thameslink Metro is based on the completion of the King's Cross development and increased capacity at London Bridge. It would allow a significant increase in trains running via Thameslink; namely, through King's Cross, Farringdon, St. Paul's and London Bridge, besides the introduction of through services from Cambridge, Peterborough and Bedford on the one hand, to points south of the River such as Gatwick Airport and Ashford International on the other.
Sir Bob Reid, the present and newly-appointed chairman of British Rail, has said that he regards the improvement of communication to be an absolute priority, not only when services are disrupted but especially at those times. From a personal viewpoint, that point is continually and emphatically raised at every British Rail (Southern) Board meeting that I have attended. We regard as appalling the way in which British Rail customers are not kept informed. It is equally remarkable just how much Joe Public will tolerate if he is kept informed. It is such a basic point. We are hammering it as hard as we can; we hope we are winning.
More generally, over the six months of my association with British Rail (Southern), I have been heartened not only by the proposed improvements of which I was unaware until I did join the board, but also of the very high calibre and attitude of the senior staff. I admit that neither I nor others of my colleagues have been quite so impressed by the attitude of the less senior staff. There British Rail has a major problem on its hands. The Government's approach to British Rail's very real attempts to rise to the challenge are welcome but only as far as they go. I listened with the greatest of interest last Monday to the debate in this House on the EC Report on Community Railways.
My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said in that debate—I am deliberately extracting points to make my point—
"we see no case for putting public money into rail investment where no clear external benefits can be demonstrated … the Government do not support increased Community funding of rail infrastructure investment".—[Official Report, 4/3/91; cols. 1243 and 1244.]
I am still left with the question: why, or indeed why not?
Therefore the first problem that British Rail has to face must amount to this: what is the Government's policy on rail transport? To what extent are the Government prepared to encourage rail travel to relieve road congestion and its attendant environmental problems? My noble friend also said last Monday
1420
that the Government's financial programmes work on a three-year basis. I understand that, but I also criticise it. He went on to say that,
"does not prevent British Rail from planning further ahead itself".—[col. 1246.]
I hope that I have already demonstrated the extent to which British Rail needs to plan ahead. Some of the projects which it has on its shopping list are for 15 to 17 years ahead. I am not saying today that there is nothing wrong with British Rail or that substantial improvements are not necessary. That would be manifestly untrue. However, British Rail is making a very genuine attempt to improve. With Sir Bob Reid in the chair, we can expect strong leadership from him and therefore the essential change in attitude in British Rail staff to one of pride in their job and of service to the customer. However, how can British Rail plan properly when investment levels more than three years ahead can be based only on educated guesswork? In effect, the Government are asking British Rail to run a marathon but will not tell it the route to take or even provide the proper running shoes.
4.57 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany, my qualifications for speaking in this debate are that, although I have not been driving in this area for quite as long as he has, I have been driving mostly in and out of London since 1953, especially in the past 25 to 30 years. In that time I have noted the difference in the traffic. It is interesting to note that as soon as a dual carriageway is constructed which takes traffic out into the country, the traffic increases. That has happened on the A.10 which is the road that I use to come into London. Enormous differences have taken place.
When I was in the other place I always used my car to drive in. That was a distance of 22 miles and I managed to do that in under an hour. I still drive in. My noble friend Lady Phillips is not here so I do not need to apologise to her for using my car, though I am now driven. The journey now takes anything up to an hour and-a-half. If one travels in the rush hour the journey can take nearly two hours. Since I came to this House in 1981 I have used public transport a great deal.
There are two problems. The first is the long-term problem which we have been discussing. I hope that the enthusiasm shown by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, will bear some fruit because British Rail has an awful lot to do. How does one get the tens of thousands of people who travel to work daily by motor car to transfer to public transport and in some comfort? After all, in spite of traffic jams, at least one is comfortable in a motor car. Is there a case for helicopter transport? After all, there is not a great deal of congestion in the air 500 feet above London and one can land a helicopter on a tennis court. I have had one land on my tennis court. I agree it would be expensive but a good many people could afford it. It might well take off the road a few Rolls-Royces, which take up a good deal of room. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can give that suggestion some thought if he is looking for something to do in the future.

1421
There is the immediate problem of the present chaos on our roads, not only in London but on the roads around London and the South East in general. Need I mention the M.25? The two problems interlock, but let us look first at the long term problem. To relieve the congestion on the roads how can we persuade these tens of thousands of motorists to use public transport? At present public transport is appalling, and I use the word with some feeling. My experience in travelling from Broxbourne—it is not a long journey and I travel home again often in the rush hour—is that the journey can be appalling. If I travel at any time near the rush hour—from 4 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.—I have to stand in the tube from Westminster to Liverpool Street. Then I have to barge through the crowds. People who are going to Bishop's Stortford in order to go to Stansted find that undertaking the journey with their luggage is very difficult indeed. Having to change at Liverpool Street is a bit of a burden as well. On many occasions I have had to stand in a first-class carriage choked full with second-class passengers. Such conditions will not attract motorists off the road at the present moment.
I have spoken about this matter to a railway official whom I know very well. I suggested that we should have bigger trains and more of them. He pointed out to me that this would create more congestion than there is at the moment because the lines are simply not capable of carrying more and bigger trains. He was quite emphatic that extra lines are required. He also pointed out that it would be better if some of the suburban lines—in particular the Cambridge line and the Hertford line into Liverpool Street—could be directed into Charing Cross and so give commuters a seat all the way without their having to make this dreadful change at Liverpool Street.
In addition, there are no elevators at Westminster Station, at Liverpool Street Station or at my local station at Broxbourne. We all have to climb stairs. Some of the flights of stairs are very bad indeed and I have fall en down twice in the past year.
An expansion of the Central Line might be a tremendous help. The line goes right to Ongar through Epping. If that line could be doubled up it would give many people comfort all the way through to the centre of London. Trying to get people to use the trains under the present packed conditions will not work at all. I am sure that the situation I describe is similar to that described by my noble friend Lord Wallace on his line. I am sure that it is the same all around London.
To carry out the suggestions which have been made in this debate would cost an enormous amount of money and, quite frankly, would never be undertaken privately. If public money is not found, we shall never get this enormous number of car drivers off the road. I do not travel a great deal by bus, but I must admit I rather enjoy a ride on a bus. But due to traffic jams they are often late and are not very much better than the railways from that point of view.
There have been suggestions about charging cars to come into London. I wonder where one would start? Would one be charged when one crossed the M.25 or would one need to come to the North and South Circular Roads before one needed permission to come
1422
into the centre of London? How much would the charge be? Would it be enough to force people onto the railways? I should like to hear some ideas about that. I am told that between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of cars coming into London are company cars. Their drivers are sometimes not too concerned about expense and might be perfectly willing to pay a large charge. It would be interesting to see how that would work. I saw an advertisement about the setting up of a small company to organise car sharing. I have never seen anything more about that and I wonder whether the idea has got off the ground. I do not think it has, but there is no doubt that car sharing could help.
In the present situation I do not think that charging will do the trick. That leaves us with a ban on cars unless one can prove the absolute necessity of coming into London by car. Again, there are huge problems. Would this work and who would decide the necessity? This point has been put forward and I think it is worth looking at.
Some of the points made during the debate should be insisted upon. There should be no parking within 25 yards of traffic lights. I come down to Smithfield. Two main roads cross there—Clerkenwell Road and Charterhouse Street. There is a tremendous amount of traffic turning right to go down to Smithfield. There are cars parked on the left and there you are stuck. Right-turning cars have to wait for traffic lights and one is left stranded. It is quite frustrating and there seems to be no effort to stop this. I am sure there are many places with similar problems. Some of the biggest sinners are property developers. For nearly a fortnight a full skip sat within 20 yards of the lights. I do not know who was supposed to shift it.
Co-operation between road menders and traffic departments is pretty poor. I travelled out of London through Camden Town the other day. Halfway along College Street there was a huge traffic jam caused by roadworks on the left hand side and parked cars on the right, making it one way at about 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. I do not understand why that is allowed.
I should just like to quote my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman who was chairman of the committee which looked at the transfer of Spitalfields Market to Hackney Marshes. I do not have time to quote him in full but his words appear at col. 1564 of the Official Report of 27th July 1989. He said how important it was that this change should be attendant on the spur of the A.11 passing Leytonstone and Leyton, in order to prevent traffic using narrow one-way streets. What stage has that development reached? My noble and learned friend and I would be very interested in the Minister's reply since we both mentioned the point during the debate in July 1989.
My final point concerns slow vehicles on country roads. My industry is the biggest sinner, with tractors moving at 15 or 16 mph being followed by six or seven cars. Many years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was answering for the Government on traffic matters, I tried to make the point that in California it is mandatory for a slow vehicle to move over to the side of the road to allow other vehicles to pass. The noble Lord said that that would not be possible in this

1423
country. I think that it would be. The one problem is that there are far too many people in the South East of England.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, having declared my interest I should like to declare also my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us the opportunity yet again to discuss the problems of congestion in London and the South East. Before I embark on my own speech perhaps I may say that, if one remark sticks in my mind, it is the one made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth—that time is not on our side.
Whether we accept the CBI figure of £10 billion as being the cost per annum of this congestion—that figure is by now nearly two years old and so I wonder whether it should not be scaled up a little—or whether we accept the passenger figures that are given in the Central London Rail Study, one has to be aware that congestion is becoming a problem. The Central London Rail Study contained the hard fact that peak hour arrivals at the worst time—that is the morning peak, because the afternoon peak is more spread—had risen by some 23 per cent. between 1988 and 1990 and projected a further increase of 13 per cent. by the end of this decade. One cannot dismiss the magnitude of the problem when one looks at those figures. But nor can we dismiss what has been done about it by the Government, by British Rail and by LUL.
Since I first took part in the one of these debates we have had developments in the pipeline such as the Heathrow Express. We have the Stansted Link. We are promised the east-west crossrail. We are getting the Jubilee Line extension. The Docklands Light Railway is being extended at both ends and its stations are being extended so that capacity may increase. On the question of stations, the reconstruction of Liverpool Street mainline is nearing completion. We have King's Cross International in the pipeline. Both have the particular advantage that they make available longer platforms for suburban trains and thus give a capacity increase on the routes out of King's Cross and Liverpool Street.
There are also huge and costly reconstructions taking place on the London Underground; at the Angel, Mansion House, Victoria, London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road, Holborn Kingsway; and Chancery Lane is in the pipeline. There is a good deal of refurbishment of many BR and LUL stations. Similarly there is a refurbishment of many of the trains. We have new fleets coming on stream for British Rail. Central Line modernisation is going on which I understand will give a 16 per cent. increase in capacity. In the pipeline we have the Northern Line resignalling and modernisation. More remotely, we have Chelsea-Hackney. Closer to hand there is the Thameslink expansion and of course in the not too distant future there is the high speed link through Kent.
I would not dream of saying that all this activity will solve all the problems. The Central London Rail
1424
Study reminds us that there will still be mainline problems between Waterloo and Surbiton and between Liverpool Street and Shenfield. There will also be problems on a number of Underground sections. But I feel that my list—and I have excluded many other matters—meets fairly four square any allegations of government, British Rail and London Underground Limited inertia.
What can we do further to improve the position? We need to look at new means of finance for our public transport infrastructure investment. Additional to the fare box and the property gains which the Government hope to see but will find very difficult in many instances, one has straight grant. That is an important matter. We must continue to have grant for the foreseeable future. My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned the electrification of the Ashford to Hastings line. I wonder whether it is right that a project such as this, which is not perhaps of national importance but is important to the people in the area, should have been delayed by three years. It is not a costly project—it will cost around £25 million—but it has been delayed for three years due to the vagaries of the economic cycle and also the irregularities of the property business. Similar circumstances are delaying the Reading-Redhill electrification to a point where it is now out of sight, whatever that might mean.
Should we not be looking for more BAA/BR type deals such as the one that is financing the Heathrow Express? Should we be looking at the American system of tax exempt bonds which was used to finance Dallas Fort Worth Airport and the Bay Area metro system? Should we be looking at the system used in France—a selective employment tax charged on Parisian employers to fund developments on the metro and suburban railways? Should we be looking at out and out privatisation, underpinned by subsidy for socially necessary services? Should we be looking at road pricing—that is a bullet, as several noble Lords have said, which we shall have to bite—with the revenue hypothecated to transport infrastructure investment? Should we follow the example of Bergen, and now Oslo, where in effect walls have been put round the cities? Every motorist driving in between, say, 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday has to pay a toll and that funding is ploughed back into transport infrastructure investment. Should we follow the Californian example and seek to penalise the car with but a single occupant? If one thinks of it in a different way that single occupant represents a load factor of 25 per cent., assuming the car is a four-seater.
That leads me to the excellent point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that one of the problems we face is that we all want to get to our offices at the same time. We contribute to congestion and we demand —perhaps require—investment. But that investment is only necessary in perhaps 20 hours of the 168 there are in each week. At other times it is lying spare.
Perhaps I may refer to the load factors on British Rail. On InterCity, across the board it is 33 per cent. If we have peak hour overloading it must mean that outside the peaks it is well below that figure. The trouble with an unused seat, be it on a bus or a tube

1425
train, is that it is immediately perishable. One cannot store it anywhere. If it goes empty it is gone for good. Network SouthEast's load factor is also 33 per cent. across the board. There is plenty of spare capacity there but alas not at the times that we all demand to have it. The peak load factor on London Transport buses is said to be 60 per cent. and off peak it is as low as 14 per cent. Again there is plenty of capacity there if only we can get the buses running reliably and smoothly. Whichever way one looks at the load factors there is plenty of capacity if only we would change our travel habits.
We should ask the operators to re-examine whether pricing has a role to play in dealing with peak hour congestion. I recall that in the 1980s the Monopolies and Mergers Commission prevailed upon British Rail to bring back the early morning so-called "workman's return' which was a heavily discounted ticket either in the form of a day ticket or a season ticket. The experiment was conducted in the Medway towns. It did not do much to solve the problem. However, if one considers the traffic growth figures since the early 1980s, one wonders whether it would not be worth looking at that idea again. Similarly, one wonders whether it might not be worth looking at even bigger discounts to encourage totally off-peak travel. I appreciate that my friends in British Rail might well say that British Rail will lose revenue.
But there seems to me to be a pay-off in that if you can save investment you still have something of a balance: all right, you lose the revenue on one side but, on the other side, you save investment.
There is one final matter I should like to mention which causes me concern. It is an aspect which we must all bear in mind whenever we seek to support any infrastructure development. I refer to the fact that, although infrastructure development is designed to alleviate congestion in the long term, it produces its own short-term congestion.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. We know that London Underground is seeking powers to reconstruct its station at London Bridge. We also know that British Rail will be applying to Parliament next year in order to seek powers to reconstruct the Borough Market junctions adjacent to its London Bridge station as part of the Thameslink enhancement. Further, we know that the Jubilee Line extension is due to take place and it is possible that we shall have the high-speed link and its routing towards King's Cross. If those extensions overlap too much it will cause chaos. Unfortunately, as we need them quickly, it would seem that they will overlap. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, time is not on our side.
I believe that we must recognise the fact, without being panglossian, that Her Majesty's Government, British Rail and London Transport are doing a great deal to tackle the congestion problem. One can only hope that means will be found to enable more to be done in this connection.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for giving us the opportunity to discuss the transport problems of London and the South East. I am sure
1426
that noble Lords will understand if I confine my remarks to London: it is the place that I know best. In speaking about London Transport I am speaking from personal experience.
London differs enormously from other areas in Britain in its demand for movement and for peak hour journeys by road and rail. It also differs because of the interaction of public and private transport, the multiplicity of destinations and networks, the concentration of employment in central London and the length of the journey to work. Those are factors which apply only to London and not to other British cities. The density of traffic in London is 10 times greater than the national average and off-peak traffic levels in central London are 50 times greater. Altogether, London has about 40 per cent. of the road mileage of Great Britain concentrated in 0.7 per cent. of the area and carrying about 10 per cent. of all traffic.
As everyone knows, the roads in London are terribly congested during peak hours. Congestion increases the costs of all public and private services which are dependent upon road usage. It also slows down construction and impedes maintenance both on roads and on buildings. Further, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, it has an increasing impact on the environment in terms of carbon dioxide emissions which affect global warming and atom-spheric pollution.
London is the capital and the cultural, administrative and financial heart of the nation. As a consequence, it maintains many special facilities and attracts a large number of tourists and visitors both from home and abroad. Indeed, more than 7 million people live in London. They all need to travel in connection with their work and also during their leisure time. In addition, more than ½ million people travel into the city every weekday to reach their place of work.
When people travel they want comfortable and efficient transport at a reasonable price, but unfortunately they do not get it. Perhaps I may give noble Lords an example. The buses run in convoys. Instead of a bus arriving every three or five minutes, passengers are often obliged to wait for 15 or 20 minutes, and sometimes even as long as half an hour, after which three or four buses arrive, as I said, in convoy. The first two will be overcrowded, the third will not be quite so full but the fourth bus will be half empty.
Journey times for buses also vary considerably. It can sometimes take half an hour to complete a particular journey on a bus route but the same journey may take as long as an hour and a half. It all depends on the time of day, the day of the week, the weather or indeed the season of the year.
While the Underground is better in terms of the time taken to complete the journey, travel is also made difficult because the trains run irregularly. The frequent announcements bother me. I do not know whether other people feel the same. They usually state that trains are not running on a particular line or that

1427
they are not stopping at a particular station. What is worse is that the announcements are usually either inaudible or very unclear. Moreover, the trains are dirty and the escalators and lifts unreliable and unsafe. I agree with my noble friend Lady Phillips that we need an increase in the number of staff on the Underground if we are to improve safety. Further, as we heard earlier, the fares are the highest in the world; indeed, they are twice the average of other European Community capital cities.
The Underground needs to be renovated and new lines must be built. Several speakers have already mentioned some of the new lines which it is anticipated will be built. Unfortunately, however, investments are being postponed or cancelled and tight financial targets are being imposed upon the network. It strikes me that, although they hold out the prospect of improvement through investment in the future, the Government appear to be happy to preside over declining services at present. I find the situation quite ridiculous. We need more investment in our public transport services, both as regards trains and buses, and we need better management of the fleet. Congestion should be tackled by using technology to speed up the buses. We must also impose some form of road pricing.
The Greater London Council carried out a study of the effect of supplementary licensing. Serious discussions took place during the time that I worked in County Hall about the possibility of introducing such a scheme. However, there are more sophisticated methods of road pricing. I believe that the Government should be giving serious consideration to the adoption and introduction of such a scheme at the earliest possible opportunity. For the past 30 years there has been the fear that London will grind to a halt. It is about time action was taken to remove that fear. Let us act now.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, unfortunately one of the best speakers today was left off the list! In an excellent speech, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis set the tone for the debate. Many noble Lords agreed with his criticisms. There is obviously general dissatisfaction with the state of transport in greater London and the South East as a whole. Many noble Lords have not merely made criticisms but have put forward some useful suggestions with which I hope the Minister might find it possible to deal.
My noble friend Lord Pitt said that ½ million people came into central London daily. Figures released only 48 hours ago by the Automobile Association put the number at 1.1 million coming in daily during peak hours. The department has said that 82 per cent. of commuters travelling into central London travel on British Rail and London Regional Transport services.
Reference has been made to the Channel Tunnel. All I shall say on that subject is that unless we proceed quickly with the construction of the high speed link and the development of the rail network we may add to congestion in the South East by attracting more
1428
industry to the region to the detriment of other parts of the country which are looking forward to that rail link.
My noble friend also talked about the rail subsidy. I ask once again: how do the Government justify their policy with regard to the PSO grant to Network SouthEast? It has been drastically reduced over the years. The Government have made it clear that their intention is to phase it out by 1992–93. In an Oral Answer in the other place on 15th February Mr. Roger Freeman, Minister for Public Transport, made it clear that the full operating cost of Network SouthEast should be met by the passengers. As other noble Lords have said, higher fares are not the way to attract people on to rail or any other public service from the roads. Mr. Freeman gave another Oral Answer on 11th February when he said:
"British Rail is suffering from a severe labour shortage and cannot recruit and retain drivers and guards".
No reason was given as to why that should be the position or what it is intended to do about it. Yet in another Answer on the same day in the same column the Minister said:
"There is no indication that the serious problems with Network SouthEast services have anything to do with revenue subsidy, investment or pay".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/91; col. 597.]
That contradicts what he said earlier. If that is the position—if investment, subsidy and pay have no effect—what caused the situation described by Mr. Freeman in his original Answer?
Reference has been made to the recent speech made by Sir Bob Reid, British Rail's new chairman. I shall emphasise what Sir Bob Reid asked for. He said on 27th February that BR's long-term investment must be increased by £2 billion to meet large-scale projects which include the Channel Tunnel high speed link; and that a further £300 million a year was needed for British Rail to run more efficiently. The Minister said in our debate on Monday:
"Government plans allow British Rail to invest up to £4 billion in the next three years".—[Official Report, 4/3/91; col. 1246.]
The important word there which I emphasise is "allow". The Government are not investing the money. They will allow British Rail to invest it out of its own funds. If British Rail does not have the revenue it cannot invest unless the Government intend to help out if British Rail does not have the necessary finance.
As many noble Lords have said, many people in London and the South East will continue to wish to use a car for some purposes. I wish to use my car for some purposes. Equally, we must consider how to reduce the use of the car, which causes congestion. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, in years to come the roads will be choked. I have reasons for using a car on some occasions to come to the House of Lords. I shall not go into my personal details, but there are two factors which cause me to use my car. The first is an inadequate bus service to my tube station; and, secondly, inadequate parking facilities near the tube station at the time when I want to travel. When I

1429
arrive the parking places are often full. If I do manage to arrive time, the parking slot is so far away that I find it almost impossible to walk to the station.
We must pay some attention to the roads. I am not ignoring the roads. We want adequate by-passes, roads to the ports and roads which are adequate for the movement of goods. While we wish to see more goods moved by rail, most of us recognise that a high concentration of goods will still be moved by road. The passage through Parliament of the New Roads and Street Works Bill will help greatly to reduce the congestion on many roads. We all supported that Bill. We had been awaiting the implementation of the Home Report for some five years. We shall discuss red routes when we deal with the Road Traffic Bill. However, we must bear in mind that those and other schemes for urban clearways for through traffic could lead to greater congestion because more people could be attracted to using the through roads into central London. When they reach central London where do they go? I live not far from the M.11. I understand the reason for the M.11 extension to Hackney; but when people reach Hackney where will they go? I have not heard that point mentioned by anyone.
The Government have fortunately conceded that the construction of more roads will not solve London's traffic problem. It is obvious from reading the road assessment reports that the answer is to pay greater attention to public transport. I make that statement and I hope that it will be accepted generally. I do not make it with a doctrinaire attitude but because the only way is to persuade people not to use their cars to come into central London.
Overcrowding has been mentioned. I was surprised —perhaps I should not have been—to read in the Guardian on 5th March a report about the Cannon Street accident inquiry. Mr. Richard Malins, the London regional planning manager for Network SouthEast, said that a recent survey had shown that 230 out of 856 trains running into London between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. had too many standing passengers. He said that, of the 279,000 passengers on those commuter trains, no fewer than 23,339 were standing when they should not have been.
My noble friend—I call him my noble friend because he is interested in the same subject as I am —Lord Teviot mentioned buses. There must be the maximum possible development of bus lanes. I echo what my noble friend Lady Phillips said: we must consider the abolition of one-person-operated buses in central London. If there is one single problem that causes congestion in central London it is the OPO buses. The problem is bad enough where I live, in a borough just over the border from Greater London. Because people park their cars near the bus stop the bus has to halt nearer the middle of the road. If it is a one-person-operated bus, immediately there is congestion with other vehicles trying to pass.
There must be stricter enforcement of parking restrictions. It is no good having a law unless it is enforced, and the laxity over parking restrictions in many areas is one cause of congestion not only in the central area but in other parts of the South East.
1430
The Government must seriously consider whether to proceed with their intention to deregulate buses in Greater London. I draw attention to problems in my area where practically all our services are contracted out. Some of the buses are in a poor state and when one breaks down the small company has no replacement. That means that my half-hourly service becomes an hourly service. That problem must also be considered.
If we wish to encourage people to use the buses, greater attention must be given to arranging more feeder bus routes and radial services. We must keep in mind that many people do not have the use of a car and in those circumstances buses for feeder and radial routes are the only way of moving around.
I wish to make two final points. Reference has been made to the problem, particularly in London, that we must integrate transport plans with land use planning and economic development. At the moment we do not do so. Transport is considered in complete and utter isolation. As one or two noble Lords have stressed, there is a need for an elected London-wide authority which will not only examine London's transport as a whole but ensure that the needs of transport will be considered with other aspects. We cannot deal with transport unless we consider economic development and many other environmental and social matters. As has been stressed, London is the only major city which has no central, strategic authority. I expect the Government to move fairly quickly on the matter.
I have been told that I must finish no later than 5.45 p.m. and I shall do so.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, 5.45 p.m. leaves the Minister one minute short of his 20 minutes.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it will take one minute off my time too. I asked the Clerk and was given the assurance as to when I must sit down and I shall faithfully adhere to it.
The Automobile Association reminded us of the vast number of bodies responsible for various aspects of traffic in London and the South East. I believe that we must take notice of it. The AA is concerned with cars and it states that public transport does not offer what is required in the way of routes and quality of service to satisfy the public demand. I believe that that is important. Those of us who wish to see public transport developed must ensure that it provides the frequency and adequacy of a decent service. That is the way to help solve London's congestion problems.
5.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on initiating what has turned out to be an extremely wide-ranging and informative debate.
In the short time available I shall set out briefly the Government's approach to transport in London and the South East. I shall also try to respond to points which noble Lords have raised and I apologise in advance if I do not manage to do justice to all the

1431
contributions. The debate has been wide-ranging and time is short. I shall certainly write to noble Lords whose points I do not manage to answer.
First, I turn to the Government's policy. Our aim is to ensure that the growing demands for the movement of goods and people are met by efficient and safe transport facilities which do not impose unacceptable environmental costs. That aim applies throughout the country. However, as the Motion recognises, meeting the objective in London and the South East represents a particular challenge. The South East is home to 17 million people and it is densely populated. At the heart of the region is London, with a population of 7 million. It is important to remember that London is not just a national capital; it is a world business and financial centre with arguably only two serious rivals —New York and Tokyo. Well over 1 million people commute to Central London each day, many of them from outside the Greater London area. There are over 2 million other journeys to work each day.
Given those figures, it is no surprise that the provision of transport in London and the South East is a massive task. We must also recognise that the standards at which we are aiming are becoming ever more demanding. People expect transport which is comfortable, clean, efficient and above all safe. People demand and expect to see improvements in their quality of life without sacrificing their prosperity. The Government attach great importance to meeting those demands.
Looking at the South East generally, a major priority is to expand and improve the road network. Though the railways carry a lot of freight and a great many London commuters, it is road transport which keeps most of the region's economy moving. That is a point which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth made. We must continue to improve the links between our towns and cities where increased economic growth has brought more traffic and problems of congestion. We must also provide bypasses which improve people's daily environment by removing through-traffic from their towns and villages.
Many of the problems we face are the problems of increasing prosperity. Motor traffic, for example, has increased by a factor of eight, since the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, started driving 40 years ago. He asked me particularly about the situation on the Hackney to the M.11 link road. Subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, the main works on the scheme are expected to start by the end of this year and to take up to four years to complete.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and other noble Lords pressed for more freight to be carried on rail. We give capital grants to increase the use of rail and water facilities for freight. We are reviewing the criteria which include environmental benefits. However, we must recognise that rail freight is not flexible enough to meet all our needs: for example, for retail deliveries in London.
The department's trunk road programme for London and the South East, including East Anglia, amounts to well over £6 billion over the next 10 years. My noble friend, Lord Lucas, referred to many of the
1432
schemes. There will be some entirely new motorway links: the M.40 which opened in January provides a second motorway route between London and Birmingham, relieving pressure on the M.1. A new route is planned to link Chelmsford to the M.25.
My honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport announced yesterday in another place that the Government intend to hold a private finance competition for this route once work on the public sector scheme has identified a preferred route. There are some gaps in the existing network which need to be filled, for example, on the Maidstone to Ashford section of the M.20.
However, much of the work that is being done on roads in the South East is in improving the network that exists: the M.23 and A.23 to Brighton or the A.27-A.259 coast road, for example, where a number of communities including Brighton will benefit from bypasses.
A large proportion of the investment in the roads in the South East is directed towards improving existing motorways, notably the M.25. Some of that road has already been widened; eventually the whole motorway will be improved to dual four-lane standard. The privately financed Dartford Bridge which will be opened later this year will remove one of the motorway's worst bottlenecks. The department recently published an action plan containing proposals for improving the safety and traffic flows on the M.25. Even without these improvements, the average speed on most sections of the M.25 is over 50 miles an hour. This is despite the fact that the M.25 accounts for only 6 per cent. of the country's motorway mileage, but carries 14 per cent. of all motorway traffic.
The M.25 has also played an important role in keeping unnecessary traffic out of London. Partly because of the motorway, the number of heavy goods vehicles entering London has dropped by a quarter since 1983 and the number entering central London has nearly halved. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will be pleased with those figures. She reminded us of the problems that heavy lorries can and do cause in London.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I accept those figures, but I do not believe them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, they are a fact, whether or not the noble Baroness believes them. I should not have given way as I have much ground to cover and a limited length of time in which to do it.
Local highway authorities also have major programmes of capital expenditure to improve their part of the road network. The Government help to pay for these, and last December we announced that the Transport Supplementary Grant, which is paid at a rate of 50 per cent. for local roads, was to rise by 17 per cent. This allows all existing commitments on major new schemes to be honoured, and 35 new schemes to be accepted. The South East and London did particularly well, receiving £132 million of grant out of a total of £283 million for major schemes in England.

1433
Road traffic within London itself is likely to go on growing, though more slowly than in the rest of the South East. The Department plans to spend some £1.9 billion on selective improvements to the trunk road system—the upgrading of the North Circular is an example—to remove the worst bottlenecks and accident blackspots. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I stress that these improvements are selective. It is not our policy to encourage car commuting into London but rather to provide for the journeys within London that are essential to allow our goods, businesses and services to be transported. My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about the study regarding improved orbital roads. In particular the study of the south-west quadrant in which local authorities have been involved is nearing completion.
We are also working hard to get more out of the existing road network by improving traffic management. I, too, would draw attention particularly to the Road Traffic Bill, which is now before your Lordships' House. The Bill will provide for a 300-mile network of priority routes in London to get traffic—particularly buses—moving more easily, reliably and safely. It will also provide for a better system of parking control throughout London. I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would welcome that step. My noble friend Lord Teviot certainly did.
In mentioning buses, I should pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. London Transport has had considerable success in halting the long-term decline in bus usage. Patronage remains higher than 10 years ago. Bus reliability has generally improved. Currently over 97 per cent. of London Transport scheduled miles actually operated compared to 96 per cent. this time last year, despite busier roads.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested that we should think more about road pricing. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also mentioned that. They suggested that road pricing might be an answer to congestion in London. We do not rule that out as a long-term policy but we do not believe that at present the interests of London would best be served by forcing its residents and businesses off the road.
I turn now to carbon dioxide emissions. The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Pitt, and my noble friend Lord Teviot referred to that matter. Stop-start conditions in congested traffic increase carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore making traffic run more smoothly—our red route proposals will achieve this—will help. Individual motorists can do a great deal to help by choosing more fuel-efficient cars—models now on the market vary by up to 45 per cent. in fuel consumption—and by keeping their cars well maintained. Our proposal to introduce an emissions check into the MoT test will also help.
But perhaps our biggest priority for London is to improve rail services. London's long decline stopped in the early 1980s, confounding the forecasters who had expected the capital's population and employment to go on falling. Since then the number of central
1434
London commuters has increased by nearly 10 per cent. and there has been a big switch from road to rail. Between 1983 and 1989 the number of rail commuters to central London increased by 22 per cent., while the number of people commuting by road fell by 16 per cent. I hope noble Lords will find those figures encouraging.
The unhappy experiences of many London commuters in recent weeks has perhaps made us all —my noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned this—the more aware of just how much London depends on its rail and Underground services. As my noble friend Lord Geddes reminded us, those services do a remarkable job in getting people to and around London, but no one would deny that there is room for improvement.
Both British Rail and the Government regret the disruption that the severe weather caused recently to rail services. The snowfall exposed a number of deficiencies in British Rail's equipment and procedures. British Rail is reviewing its equipment and procedures, and it is also making comparisons with the way other European countries cope with such conditions. British Rail will consider particularly how best to bring up-to-date information to passengers. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to that.
Over the next three years London Transport plans to invest approaching £3 billion. That is 90 per cent. more in real terms than in the past three years. During this financial year alone British Rail's Network SouthEast is investing £350 million and has plans for substantial investment in the future.
The Government's commitment to increased investment is already bearing fruit. For example, Network SouthEast is receiving new coaches at the rate of eight per week, and this is set to continue. Lines which have benefited and are benefiting from investment include the Northampton Line which received new rolling stock during 1990 and the Chiltern Line which is in the process of being completely modernised. Marylebone Station has been totally refurbished, resignalling work is almost complete and BR has just taken delivery of the first of 89 new vehicles which should transform the Chiltern Line from one of the poorest performers on Network SouthEast to one of the best. Other projects well in hand include the networkers project for Kent Link routes. Some 400 vehicles are already on order and a £120 million fixed works programme implies the approval of a further 400 coaches in total. Delivery of the new trains is due to start this September.
A number of noble Lords referred to overcrowding. This major investment in new equipment and lines for Network SouthEast will help to tackle the overcrowding problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others referred. Overcrowding is a problem but not on all routes. Even though the numbers commuting have increased by more than 12 per cent. over the past four years, average overcrowding has decreased slightly. That is mainly due to better organisation of services to meet demand.

1435
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the subsidy to British Rail. The Government have shown flexibility in their approach to the British Rail subsidy. We have increased the PSO grant by £100 million for 1990–91 and will reconsider the issue, as and when necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that driver-only operations lengthened journey times. The introduction of driver-only operations on trains may indeed lengthen journey times initially as drivers become used to the new system; but in the longer term journey times are not increased. Driver-only operation has dramatically improved reliability on lines where it has been introduced. For example, on the Northern Line where train cancellations due to staff shortages were prevalent, they have now almost been eliminated. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to the important issue—
Lord Jay: My Lords, I hope the Minister will give way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give way. I am almost out of time as it is and I have a lot of other points that I must attempt to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the important issue of safety on trains and at stations. I refer here to the safety of people rather than of equipment. Network SouthEast is taking steps to improve security and safety standards at stations. Improved lighting at stations and car parks, closed circuit television where appropriate, better shelters and waiting rooms with better all-round visibility will, I hope, improve matters. On trains, all enclosed compartment carriages are being phased out.
The quality of service on trains is important. That is being addressed both by London Underground and by the Government who have set quality of service objectives for reliability, punctuality, peak capacity, availability of lifts and escalators, ticket purchasing facilities, crime levels and the cleaning of trains, buses and stations. Those targets are robust and they must be met by 31st March 1992.
On London Underground we are opening up Docklands and poorly served areas in south-east London with the Jubilee Line extension, costing over £1 billion. The extension of the Docklands Light Railway into the City will open next year. In little more than a year from now new trains will enter service on the Central Line. That is part of a £700 million modernisation of that line. A number of noble Lords referred to that question.
In the longer term we shall see a transformation of rail services in the South East. I should particularly mention, as have noble Lords, the east-west Crossrail which the Government approved last year and which should be completed by 1999. It will directly link British Rail suburban services into Liverpool Street with those into Paddington. The result will be that commuters from Reading, for example, will be able to travel on a new electrified line directly to the West End or the City. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that the recommendations of the central London rail study, far from being forgotten, are now being implemented.
1436
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talked about equality of treatment between road and rail appraisal. Road and rail schemes are appraised differently because rail passengers pay direct fares whereas road users pay indirectly through vehicle and fuel taxes. We are not biased towards one or the other. That is shown in this year's allocation of funds in which more is being spent on rail, at 55 per cent. for non-road expenditure as against 45 per cent.
I shall deal briefly with the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Teviot about the Channel tunnel link. We are fully aware of the enormous importance attached by local authorities in Kent to the provision of the passenger station at Ashford. Ministers received British Rail's investment submission on 28th January and we shall reach our decision as soon as possible.
To sum up in the brief time that I have left, securing continuous improvements to transport in London and the South East is enormously important both to businesses and individuals who live and work in the region and to the prosperity of the country as a whole. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the importance which the Government attach to making the necessary improvements and to show that the resources are being made available.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like the Minister, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who participated in what can generally be regarded as a very interesting and successful debate. I hope that the Minister and his department will give full consideration to the speeches that were made during the course of the three hours. I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he responded to the debate even though he does not carry me with him in all that he said. However, as ever, he was extremely courteous. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Refugees
6.4 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to call attention to the international problem of refugees; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I appreciate the opportunity to open this debate on the refugee problem, although I must explain that I do so because my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs is indisposed. My noble friend, who drafted the Motion, has for many years been deeply concerned about the difficulties facing refugees as they seek asylum in this country and elsewhere. We all regret that she is unable to make her speech here today. I am glad to say, however, that she hopes to be back in the House very soon.
We have all, in and outside Parliament, been preoccupied over the past few months with the conflict in the Gulf, but none of us would wish to overlook or neglect other matters of importance. My noble friend

1437
has chosen an opportune moment to raise the subject, for the following reasons. First, I understand that the number of asylum seekers has risen sharply in recent years. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that when he speaks. Perhaps he will also give the House the latest figures—not only for this country but also for our partners in the European Community.
Secondly, last November the Government set up a committee to examine the position. That action was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who was then Home Secretary. I understand that the options to be discussed by the committee are the setting up of refugee camps in this country, extending requirements for visas, posting more immigration officers overseas, more deportations, tighter guidelines before someone is allowed exceptional leave to remain and other related measures.
Those are all matters of acute sensitivity, as we know from many of the cases brought to our notice. We shall study the details of the report with very great care when it appears. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will tell the House whether or not that report is to be made public so that it can be the subject of scrutiny and debate in due course.
We recognise that the problem of refugees generally raises complex and difficult issues. As I have said, the number of asylum seekers has increased substantially and is likely to rise even further. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the refugees come mainly from countries in political turmoil such as Ethiopia, Ghana, Somalia, Uganda, Zaire, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Sri Lanka. Today there are about 16 million recognised refugees in the world.
The Government have argued that many of the new arrivals are not genuine refugees. They have sought to argue that they are economic migrants who come here looking for work but pretend to be refugees. Mr. Peter Lloyd, the Minister responsible for immigration, is on the record as saying:
"Only a small proportion of asylum applications are found to be fleeing from persecution".
That assertion needs to be examined very carefully. The point has been made that asylum seekers come in the main from areas troubled by war and civil unrest and not necessarily from the poorest countries.
We must not forget that Britain is one of 107 countries which have signed the United Nations Convention on Refugees and that under that agreement Britain is obliged to allow people with such a well-founded fear to live here.
It is, of course, necessary to distinguish between genuine refugees and others but we must not overlook the consequences of making a slapdash decision. The definition of refugees is set out plainly in the 1951 United Nations convention as people who have left their countries because they have:
"a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
We are committed to observing and respecting that definition and we must take care not to avoid it by classifying genuine refugees as economic migrants.
1438
Officials must take the greatest care in their examination of the cases before them because a mistake could cost a life.
I am not happy about our current procedures, which need examination and overhaul. What, for example, happens to asylum seekers when they arrive in this country? First, they are examined by immigration officers. Some are held in custody, either in a detention centre or in prison. Others are allowed to enter the country while their application for refugee status is considered. I believe that that normally takes as long as 13 months. These unhappy people have to find somewhere to live and have to learn English. I understand that their plight is worsening from month to month because of the lack of funds. It is a sad state of affairs. I hope that the interdepartmental committee set up by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will look in detail into all aspects of this problem.
I am sure that the members of the committee and the noble Lord who is to reply will have read the report published by Amnesty International on 1st November last year. I was greatly impressed by that report and its thorough analysis of the problem as it exists in this country and the treatment of asylum seekers generally. Its conclusion is that this country's refugee determination process contains critical shortcomings—that is the word used by the report —which create a very real risk of individuals being expelled to countries where they may face imprisonment, torture or death.
The report alleges that in recent years, and especially in the last four years, the Government have increased the restrictive measures relating to their asylum policy and practice. These include restrictions on access to legal advice and representation, limitations on the rights of Members of Parliament to intervene in individual cases, arbitrary detention of many asylum seekers while their claim is being considered and several other illiberal measures.
Amnesty International further claim that those shortcomings in fact have led directly to individuals becoming victims of gross violations of human rights. There are many examples. One can be found at paragraph 3(2) (c) on page 15 of its report. It describes a case that many of us recall; that of a group of five asylum seekers who were expelled in February 1988 by the Home Office to Sri Lanka, where they were subjected to severe torture and ill treatment. The report reveals a gravely unsatisfactory state of affairs and both Houses of Parliament must take it very seriously, not least because the current procedures limit the ability of Members of Parliament to deal properly with the cases that are brought to their notice. Tampering with Members' rights is an infringement of our Constitution. If governments begin to limit their rights to pursue refugees' cases, they may end up some day by limiting their rights to investigate their constituents' problems. This is a development that we must watch very carefully indeed.
I am constrained by time from dealing with all the matters raised in the report, but I must refer to one or two of the most important points. For example, the

1439
charge is made that a major weakness of the process is that inadequate specialist training is given to officials involved in the examination and determination of claims for asylum and that that is contrary to international standards laid down in the UNHCR handbook, to which we as a country are committed. I hope that the interdepartmental committee set up by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will look very carefully at that allegation and at the arguments and cases cited in the report.
Finally, the report deals with implications of the harmonisation of asylum policy in the European Community. I must point out that it would be unfair to create the impression that this country is alone in its adoption of stricter measures. The truth is that several other governments have introduced similar measures in recent years. But the concern of Amnesty International is that, unless care is taken, the Single European Act could further restrict the position of asylum seekers and further dilute the legal obligation of Community countries to observe international standards. That may not happen but the fear is being expressed and we should take account of it. However, there is a greater expert than I on the Bench by my side who will wind up the debate and be able to deal with the Community aspect of the matter; namely, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
Amnesty International has now recommended a new code of practice which it presented to the Government over two years ago. I hope that the noble Lord can give us a reaction to these proposals or at least give us some assurance that they are being dealt with by the interdepartmental committee.
On this side of the House we are deeply concerned by the disquieting developments of the past few years. I should like to state the policies that a Labour Government would implement. First, we would repeal the illiberal carriers' liability Act and allow asylum applications to be made overseas. We would establish an independent tribunal to decide the merits of individual applications because we have concluded that leaving them to the discretion of the Home Secretary has not proved satisfactory. We shall certainly take steps to ensure that applications are dealt with more expeditiously. I believe that an average of three months would be reasonable and attainable. We would also give asylum seekers the right to appeal before deportation or removal from this country. We would seek to act in the spirit which has animated Britain's attitude to refugees for over two centuries. That is something of which we can all feel rightly proud.
We must of course work within the Community and the United Nations to ensure that international attitudes and standards are improved. The United Nations agency to which I referred (the UNHCR) has a huge task to perform. It does splendid work in all the circumstances. However, it has its own problems, especially the fact that its budget has not grown at the same rate as the increase in the number of refugees around the world. That means a cutback in the essential services which it exists to provide.
1440
International co-operation to tackle the refugee problem is essential. We appeal for strong and generous support from the Government for the United Nations agency.
Asylum seekers and victims of persecution arrive in this country traumatised and disoriented. Many of them are without money, certainly without possessions, family or friends. We must surely do our best for them. When we consider them, we cannot avoid thinking with shame and frustration of the great sin —the great evil—which seems to pervade the world and which has struck us so formidably in the Gulf crisis; namely, the money that is wasted on armaments of destruction when millions are dying from disease and starvation. Perhaps the Gulf conflict on the one hand and the plight of refugees on the other will inspire governments to get their priorities right. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.17 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. We are grateful to him for initiating this debate in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. We very much hope that she will shortly be able to return to her place. The noble Lord dealt largely with the position in this country. That is not a line which I want to pursue with your Lordships. I do, however, want to pick up on two of the elements which he quite rightly and so clearly put forward.
The refugee problem internationally is very varied. The noble Lord informed us that at the present time there were some 16 million refugees. One must remember that each one of those 16 million refugees is an individual person. We need to bear that in mind. The refugee problem varies from country to country. The refugees find themselves in varying circumstances. At present there are Somali refugees living in the Intercontinental Hotel in Nairobi. I believe that their circumstances must be rather more comfortable than those who are living under canvas in refugee camps, which is where most refugees are.
Most of the refugee problems in the world seem to us to be insoluble. Some have been in existence for decades and we are no nearer to solving them now than we were at their beginning. In particular I should like to bring before noble Lords—and I should like to ask the views of my noble friend the Minister—a problem which, albeit small, is now, I believe, capable of solution. I refer to the Ugandan refugees in Kenya. There are about 10,000 registered Ugandan refugees in Kenya, and perhaps another 6,000. If there are 16,000 (if I have my decimal point in the right place) that is 0.1 per cent. of the total problem —a very small percentage.
Now that Uganda is stable in almost all parts of the country, it is practicable for refugees from Uganda to return there. However, noble Lords will be surprised to hear that there are problems. First, it costs money to move the refugees from Nairobi back to Uganda. Secondly, there is the problem of fear. Among the refugees there are former soldiers. I am told—I am not 100 per cent. sure of this —that there has never been

1441
an amnesty for soldiers from Uganda who have deserted and fled the country. They are fearful of what will happen to them when they return.
A third problem is that of convenience. Many refugees now have children at school in Kenya. It would be disruptive for them to have to return. There is also the position of those widows who have a settled life in a refugee camp. It will be difficult for them to return to their family areas in Uganda. However, I believe that those are problems which should be, and are capable of being, tackled.
What is needed first is money. I estimate that about £100 per adult is required for a sequence of events. Transport is needed to the Ugandan border. Transport is also needed to a rehabilitation centre, to which I shall refer again in a moment. There are then the costs of clearance and of travel back to their home area. Obviously if that is nearer the border the cost is cheaper and if further away it is more expensive. I have been given an estimate of £100 to cover that cost. We are talking therefore of about £1 million, bearing in mind that with families it will involve less than £100 per head as the children will incur less cost. I believe that the Government or the ODA could contribute to that. If we had the momentum, money from the charities involved could contribute to this relatively small sum—even though we may consider that £1 million is a substantial sum.
I return to the subject of the rehabilitation centre. It will require work rather than simply money. I believe that it is possible to approach the Church of Uganda for the loan of some land on which a rehabilitation centre, a couple of tents and some equipment could be set up near Mabale. The centre could provide clearance and help for the adjustment needed for those returning to the home area. It could deal with the problem of fear and the emotion and trauma involved in returning home.
Another problem is the relationship between Kenya and Uganda. The Foreign Office could act as a broker. It could approach both governments because our relationships with each of them is good. I should like to see our Government acting as broker, working in conjunction with the charities and the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches of Uganda. They could do a great deal to assist rehabilitation.
Will the Minister be prepared to consider that prospect? If we can help to arrange for the return of all the Ugandan refugees in Kenya it will be a serious contribution to the resolution of the worldwide refugee problem. There are many larger problems. Noble Lords will speak of different problems about which they have knowledge. The refugee issue is not only a money problem; it is pre-eminently a people problem. I believe that government, charities and Churches in this country have a great role to play in easing the problem. I hope that as a result of our debate today progress can be made.
6.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I share with other noble Lords regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, was unable to introduce the debate. I am glad to hear that she will shortly be back
1442
in her place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for introducing the debate in such a clear and masterly fashion.
I wish to echo the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that refugees are not problems; they are people. Our response to refugees has to be governed by that truth. For those of us who live in stable societies, whose lives have not been torn apart by loss of home, land, livelihood, wealth or family, it is difficult to know how it feels to suffer those scourges. These are people bound to us by common humanity. When I meet them I am often humbled by their resilience, their will to survive and their capacity to make a life out of very limited resources.
The greater number come from the developing world. Their plight is caused by war, famine, political disorder or political repression. It is a truism to say that the immense difficulties of those who are or will be refugees can be overcome only as settled, stable and developed societies are built in the place of those which are at present marked by strife, violence, underdevelopment and disorder.
In the meantime, ways have to be found of coping. It is clear that much of the coping is done by countries bordering the refugees' country of origin. We have just heard the examples from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, of Uganda and Kenya. For instance, more than one-third of the world's refugees come from Afghanistan. I believe that there are over 5 million. Of those, Pakistan has taken nearly 3.5 million and Iran nearly 2.5 million. The figures are out of all proportion to the numbers which Europe has taken.
I give another example. Cambodian refugees now number about 300,000. They continue to increase by about 3,000 a month. They are housed in camps over the border in Thailand. I mention only two of many situations worldwide. Their greatest requirement is resources to enable them to survive and then to make again a reasonable, worthwhile and fulfilling life in their new country or country of origin. But resources are not being provided in sufficient quantities. The chief organ is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. That high commission has been suffering severe constraints because of budgetary crises. The harsh effects of those constraints have left their greatest mark in Africa, where many refugees living in refugee camps suffer from malnutrition. The United Nations High Commission has found a growing unwillingness on the part of richer nations to meet the cost of assisting refugees. Britain is one of the largest donors. The Overseas Development Agency has also shown a commitment to providing help.
However, there is no room for complacency. Refugees in developing countries—because that is largely where most of them still are—need help and assistance if they are to stand a chance of ever rebuilding their lives. Britain, together with other industrialised and prosperous nations, surely has a duty to do as much as it can to ensure that 1991 is not marked by a failure to help that most vulnerable group.
It is becoming fashionable to distinguish between political and economic refugees—those, on the one hand, who flee a country because their racial, national,

1443
political, religious or social affiliations place them in jeopardy and those, on the other hand, who are driven by a desire to improve their economic situation. The immigration policies of the new Europe, as they seem to be emerging, look as though they are designed to keep at bay the economic migrant—hence the title "Fortress Europe"—and to allow entry into that "Fortress Europe" only to those who are fleeing because they have no protection in their own country.
I believe that there are questions which should be asked on this matter. How wide is the new Europe to be? Is it to include Eastern European countries such as Romania and parts of Russia and, if so, will there not inevitably be economic migration within that? For example, is there not already migration from Africa through Italy, France and Spain?
Even supposing a "Fortress Europe' policy were possible, is it defensible? I believe it to be defensible only if it is accompanied by strong efforts to promote development in and to share wealth with the poorer nations. The present international scene of wealth and poverty is not only immoral—and I believe that that must be stressed strongly —but it is also unstable and dangerous. It reminds me of cities such as Sao Paulo in Brazil or Seoul in Korea, where the wealthy live in fortress-like houses or apartment blocks watched over by security guards. That is a state which is happy neither for them nor for those whom they keep at bay. That is a state which is certainly both unstable and dangerous. As is often the case, morality and long-term self interest converge to point to a way forward where such divisions and imbalances in our world are overcome.
If the reply to that is, "Why should someone not enjoy the wealth which is the fruit of his labour regardless of others around him?" then the parable of Dives and Lazarus is a reminder of the words of Jesus in the New Testament that such enjoyment is short lived to be followed by an eternity reflecting on its folly.
However, that is a diversion from my main theme shared with other speakers; that is, that responsibility for refugees must be shared internationally. If part of that responsibility is discharged by the provision of resources for refugees who remain elsewhere in the world, another part of it lies in our attitude and response to those who seek asylum in our own country. Here, I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has already said.
The responsibility to offer asylum to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is accepted by this nation and this Government. As has already been said, the number of those seeking asylum is rising sharply. My figures demonstrate that in 1988 it was about 5,000 and in 1990, last year, it had risen to 12,000. I share the disappointment already expressed at the Government's response to that rise. That response appears to be to make the claim that some of those are economic migrants who have no well-founded fear of persecution and that they should therefore be returned to their country of origin.
1444
Is that borne out by the facts? The vast majority of those seeking asylum come from countries already named—Sri Lanka, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Turkey and Iraq. Those countries are not particularly characterised by poverty but they are characterised, above all, by civil war or deep political turmoil and repression. Those seeking asylum come here from their countries in spite of the enormous difficulties facing them, not least difficulties raised by the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act. They come from countries where they belong. They need to be highly motivated to surmount the difficulties put in their path and they arrive in a different land.
Is it not a proper response to the facts to say that the cause of their coming is not increasing greed or that they suddenly want to share the good life which they believe that this country offers? Rather, it is an increasing need which has arisen because in the countries from which they come they are at risk. As we know all too well, the number of such countries is on the increase.
There are intimations that the Government intend to cut down the proportion of those who remain in this country, particularly under the category of those given exceptional leave to remain. Some 25 per cent. of asylum seekers are given refugee status and others are allowed to remain under the category of exceptional leave.
The claim is made that some of those given asylum under that category are economic migrants. However, that is rebutted by the British Refugee Council, whose experience is that many of them are genuine refugees. Is it not likely, as has already been said, that if that policy is followed, it will mean an increase in the number of those returned to their own countries to find that their fears of persecution are only too well grounded? I plead with the Government to be humane in their policy here. Refugees are people and not problems or statistics. They need a clear and humanitarian policy of asylum and a firm commitment to development aid in the developing world.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I start by saying how much I agree with the eloquent analysis of the refugee problem by the right reverend Prelate, couched as it was in both moral and practical economic terms. I hope that the Minister will reply to the points made.
When it was suggested that I might speak in this debate I felt that it was a subject for experts and that I had little to contribute. In fact, refugees have been very much part of my life. I have been a refugee. In June 1940 at the age of 12 my brother and I were shipped to the United States via Canada to avoid the Nazi invasion and occupation which many feared. Possibly my mother felt that I would be part of the liberating force of free Brits which would return at some time. My time in the USA, living comfortably in the midst of a friendly family, was very different from that of a Kurd arriving in Britain in 1990. I was able to use my refugee status to obtain free tickets to see the Boston Braves—my favourite baseball team.

1445
Before that, I had met German Jewish refugees who had been victims of Nazi persecution and Spanish republican refugees fleeing from Franco, as my mother was very much involved in the anti-Fascist movement of the 1930s. There is no doubt that this country and the USA, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out, have gained enormously in creative, intellectual and artistic talent as a result of their liberal policy towards refugees. Since the war, we have continued to be host to persecuted people from many nations.
During my work as a doctor and through personal friends I have met political refugees from many countries—Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, South Africa (both black and white), Burma, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, the USSR and quite a few from Czechoslovakia. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out, over the past 20 years our immigration policy has undoubtedly tightened up. That has been reflected in the great difficulties which seekers of asylum are now experiencing in being granted official refugee status.
The term "economic refugee", as two speakers have pointed out, has emerged as a category which disqualifies would-be immigrants from refugee status. Like those two speakers, I have never been happy with that term. It does not exist in official conventions or agreements which guide the work of official refugee organisations. I understand the concept but it may be difficult to predict whether those deemed economic rather than political refugees will not face harassment or worse on forcible repatriation.
If war, economic breakdown or famine have been sufficiently severe to drive people from their homes to risk an often hazardous journey to a strange land, should we ask them to return in any case? I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Reay, would tell us what instructions are given to immigration officials. My noble friend doubts whether they have had adequate training in interrogating applicants for asylum. How is a distinction made between economic and political refugees in borderline cases at the point of immigration?
Apart from meeting refugees in Europe, I have been privileged to visit Khao-i Dang and Site 8 camps on the Thai-Cambodian border on two separate occasions. These are run by UNHCR and UNBRO, the United Nations Border Relief Organisation. The first camp caters for so-called bona fide refugees, and there are 15,000 there, while the latter caters for displaced persons, of which there are 37,000 out of a total of 300,000 on that border.
Those visits have given me a flavour of the international dimensions of the problem, but those camps on that border are rather well run compared to some. I have not seen the prison-like conditions of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, nor the vast encampments of people in places like Malawi, where there are nearly 1 million Mozambiqueans, or in Pakistan where there are nearly 3½ million Afghans.
The British Refugee Council, from which many speakers will have heard, in its excellent brief on the
1446
worldwide refugee situation, estimates that there are now 16 million refugees, as my noble friend pointed out. The UNHCR receives a budget of 345 million dollars, which amounts to 21.50 dollars per head. I am aware that other international agencies, such as the World Food Programme, the EC and many others are involved, and that in some areas refugees are able to grow a little of their own food and have even developed some income generating activities, but these are exceptions.
Inevitably, despite international aid, a major part of the cost, at least initially, of sustaining a refugee population falls on the host country and in nearly all cases that country is poor itself; for example, Malawi and the Sudan. So that if international aid fails, widespread malnutrition and associated diseases, inevitably first affecting women and children, can and do occur. The high mortality of children in refugee camps is well documented by WHO reports and many papers in scientific and medical journals.
To take this problem further, a symposium is to be held in two weeks' time in Oxford, entitled "Responding to the Nutritional Crisis among Refugees—The need for new approaches". I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign Office will be sending observers at a high level to this seminar and that they will be reporting back to Ministers, because some extremely useful information will be given at that symposium. There are some extremely well versed and knowledgeable people who will speak there.
Also, I should like to ask the noble Lord how our contributions to UNHCR and other agencies who help refugees compare with those of other developed countries. I understand that the UNHCR budget had a shortfall of 51.2 million dollars last year. Is there no way of insisting that governments contribute their due amount through the United Nations? Does the World Bank play any part in topping-up the deficits of refugee agencies, which it could then collect from member governments at the next tranche of contributions from member states?
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, most of the refugees in the third world are moving away from present civil wars or chaos resulting from past civil wars. As a particular example, in Cambodia, as he mentioned, the numbers have gone up a lot to 3,000 per month, which is more than 10 per cent. in the last year, as the guerrilla war in Cambodia expands. Non-governmental organisations working there fear that each of the resistance factions intends to move forcibly the people in camps under their control back into Cambodia to help them claim territory. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are aware of this danger and that they will use their position at the United Nations Security Council to prevent this forcible repatriation from taking place.
As an optimist, I hope that the end of the war in the Gulf, short, terrifying and costly though it was in human, environmental and financial terms, will be followed by a renewed burst of peacemaking efforts not only in the Middle East. This country has a major

1447
part to play in Cambodia facilitating the long awaited settlement, and surely the time has come to open up the gates for aid to Vietnam. They have been punished enough. Aid now will encourage the regime to moderate further.
I see that my time is beginning to come to an end, but I should like to suggest that, because we have played such a major part in the Gulf war, our standing with the United States may now be at a very high level and we might be in a position to urge them to join together with the Soviet Union in trying to end the continuing conflict in Afghanistan by ending the supply of arms to the warring factions from both sides.
The best long-term help for refugees is surely to end wars and forcible annexations of territory. But in the meantime we should contribute, and urge others to contribute, to programmes which uphold human dignity and life. It should be remembered that refugees are often the most enterprising members of communities. They are not prepared simply to sit and suffer in the grim circumstances of their own countries. They get on their bikes or, more appropriately perhaps, mules, camels and, most frequently of all, their feet, and their courage deserves to be recognised.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to join with those who have sent their good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I am sure that we all hope to see her back very soon.
My first two points concern domestic aspects of the wider question of refugees in the world. Following last year's invasion of Kuwait, a decision was taken in the Home Office not to renew the visas of any Iraqi nationals now in Britain. If that decision stands, several thousand people will have to leave this country. Their prospects of returning to Iraq in its present state of turmoil are not good. Many of these people are opponents of the Ba'ath regime. They include Kurds and members of the democratic opposition, who may have to seek asylum in third countries if they cannot remain in Britain.
I understand that the Home Secretary is taking new advice following the ceasefire in Kuwait and the release of most of the allied prisoners of war. I am therefore confidently expecting a substantial easement in the present situation and one hopes that that will happen rather soon. The visa holders include long-term residents, short-term visitors and students. Non-renewal will cause severe personal hardship and is a more severe measure than those taken by our allies who joined with us in enforcing the UN resolutions.
A return to normal consideration of visas will contribute to long-term goodwill between Britain and the Arab and Moslem world. I accept that problems may arise over some students who are no longer being paid for by the Iraqi Government. All I ask is that their cases should be considered individually, since
1448
there may be other sources of funding especially for those in their final year. I look forward therefore to an early and helpful Government response.
I turn now to asylum seekers; that is, people seeking full refugee status in the United Kingdom. These are people who have a well-grounded fear of persecution, whether for political, religious, racial or other reasons. Her Majesty's Government have already made access to the United Kingdom more difficult than it used to be. Passports and visas are required and airlines are heavily fined if they bring in undocumented passengers. Despite this, the numbers arriving in this country tend to rise year by year, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
I believe that this reflects the denial of human rights by violent and brutal governments, and the number of wars, especially civil wars, now raging throughout the world. I am glad that the Home Office does at least inform the Foreign Office of the countries of origin of the asylum seekers who reach our shores. Increased co-operation between government departments and with the United Nations and voluntary agencies would be most welcome.
I would like to put some questions to Her Majesty's Government. Will they guarantee that asylum seekers who have suffered torture will not be subjected to detention on arrival in Britain? Will they seek to improve the training of interviewers and interpreters who examine the applications of asylum seekers? Will they ensure that bona fide applicants are given refugee status and are not fobbed off with "exceptional leave to remain", a point very well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon? This lesser permission means that an applicant has no right to be reunited in this country with his next of kin. There is a subsidiary point which is the question of the full rate of social security for asylum seekers pending decision on whether or not, and how, they can stay in this country. It has been raised on several occasions in social security Bills, and I hope that the full force of the point is now beginning to get through to the Government.
My final point concerns the 20 million or so people threatened by famines in Africa. Famine has many causes; drought, climatic change, poverty, population pressure, etc. I wish to concentrate on the connection between wars, refugee movements, both internal and external, and food shortages, disease and death. For years now war has been endemic in the Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and the Ogaden, as well as in Mozambique and Angola. These are just the most obvious examples of places where there have been massive movements of population, usually triggered by fighting, and ending in disease and death. Poor societies struggling to survive have been crippled by forces outside their control.
The richer countries have much to answer for, because they have repeatedly encouraged war for strategic reasons and by supplying arms both to insurgents and to repressive regimes. Now that the cold war is officially over I trust that the situation can be improved. The United Nations and individual countries have responded magnificently to the seizure

1449
of Kuwait and the murderous assaults on the civilian populations of Israel and Saudi Arabia. International effort on a comparable scale is now needed to come to the rescue of the refugees and famine victims in Africa. This kind of action will, I think, help to reduce the flow of asylum seekers generally into Europe.
I am sure that Her Majesty's Government can and will give a lead to which others throughout the world will respond. In particular I ask that the surplus food stocks of Europe be used to maximum effect. This must not be to replace local agriculture but to avert famine from those who have no other resources. Transport may often be the key to effective help, and it needs planning now.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I sincerely hope that there will be a positive response to the many pleas that have been put forward here tonight and there might even be a change of emphasis and of direction in government policy in relation to the problem. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is an easy problem to solve. It is extremely difficult to operate the convention of 1951 and make distinctions between political and economic refugees.
I pay tribute to the work that has been done at the reception centres by some of the officials concerned in order to apply reasonably humanitarian policies within their remit. It is not easy. It has placed an immense burden on the local authorities, particularly in the poorer areas of London, which have to accept responsibility for administering some of the policies. They are funded by the Government, but nevertheless there ale immense pressures on them to operate a reasonable and humane policy with their limited resources.
I come to the problem of refugees with some experience in the field. At the end of the last war and during the war I was involved with the United Nations as an official in settling refugees and displaced persons. At that time it seemed an impossible task. We had something like 11 million people making their way from Eastern Europe into the new territories and redefined frontiers of Western Europe. There was a vast upset at that time. But we were able to deal with the problem. One of the reasons why we were able to do so reasonably was that there was a will at the end of that war to do something about resettling the displaced persons and refugees. People had become aware of the problems of the Jews who had to escape from Eastern Europe, and we worked together in the United Nations to achieve reasonable resettlement.
Resources have been mentioned. It was to the credit of this country at the end of the last war, bombed as we were and in many areas economically seriously affected, with our economy disturbed and distressed by the war, that in 1945 and 1946 this country gave 1 per cent. of its GNP for the restoration of the economies and to help people who were affected by the war. At the present time we are not giving 0.7 per cent., which is the United Nations' target, despite our relative affluence at this time.
1450
I am sure that we felt better for it. As a nation we had moral standing as a result of that kind of policy and that kind of gesture which enhanced our position in the world. Therefore, as has been already asked tonight, is this not the time, now that the Gulf war is behind us, to make a similar commitment, with a similar national will, to deal with the kind of problem that is being discussed here tonight?
I have been given by Amnesty International a list of the trouble spots, and many of them have been mentioned. It is a serious problem concerning something like 14 million to 16 million people, as has been pointed out. This is not a statistic. We are talking about people—about human beings with the same desires and aspirations as us who are the children of God. These people now require and are crying out for our help.
What can we do? It is extremely difficult, as I say, to make a distinction between the economic refugee and the political refugee because the rules were drawn up in 1951 when most of our experience was based on refugees arriving from Eastern Europe, like Jewish refugees, who had been the subject of persecution during the war. But it occurs to me that one or two things can be done. One is immediate and domestic, and that is that the resources available to the Home Office for dealing with this matter should be increased.
I spent an hour yesterday with Mr. Peter Lloyd, the Minister responsible for refugees. I was impressed by his sincerity and desire to do something about the problem. He said that it is a matter of resources. The department does not have sufficient people to process the applications. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, 14 months will elapse before a permanent or temporary entry can be cleared. That creates tremendous tension and problems not only for the individual but also for the people dealing with the matter during that period. We must expedite the process. It is a question of resources. In the name of humanity the Government must put sufficient resources at the disposal of the Home Office to process the applications.
What can be done on the international front? Many refugees are fleeing from civil war within their own countries. Now that the status of the United Nations has been enhanced by the Gulf war, there should be a greater intervention by the nations which subscribe to the United Nations to bring civil war to an end wherever it is possible to bring their influence to bear.
Further, positive steps must be taken—we recently discussed the situation in Sri Lanka—to influence the situation in those countries where serious violations of human rights occur. We can influence by aid and policies that affect the economy. That may be difficult. Often the people who suffer from restrictions are the poorest people. Nevertheless, pressure can be brought to bear in a number of ways to ensure a greater respect for human rights.
Our contribution to aid must be stepped up. It is foolish to spend so much time, effort and money attempting to stem the flow of refugees rather than looking at the source of the problem. Why are people

1451
leaving their countries? I must say that our record in regard to the contribution of aid is miserable and does not match the high moral stance our country once enjoyed in dealing with these matters.
Therefore I suggest, first, that domestically the Government place more resources at the disposal of the Home Office for the purpose of processing the applications for asylum. Secondly, along with others they should attempt to create a new climate of will to do something. Let us put the wars behind us and think positively of how we can bring some humanity into international affairs. That would be a great gesture to assist the United Nations and international organisations in dealing with the refugee problem.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join other Peers in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, a speedy return to your Lordships' House. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for introducing this important and timely debate. I seek to speak on the plight of unaccompanied refugee children coming to this country and I shall confine myself to that topic.
On 29th January this year Miss Moser of the Refugee Council and chairman of the working group on unaccompanied refugee children spoke to a well attended meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Children. Mr. Taylor, the group director of the social services department for Hillingdon, submitted a helpful paper. He was competent to do so, in that Hillingdon includes London Airport in its area. As chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Children, I was asked to see the relevant Ministers concerning the present difficulties with regard to refugee children in this country. Instead of doing that I shall submit my questions to my noble friend the Minister.
There is much work to be done to improve the well-being of children in this country. That said, it must be faced that the condition of many children in other countries is deplorable. It is no wonder that such children seek asylum in our land. The numbers of refugee children coming to this country are growing and are likely to increase. In the last six months of 1990 six times as many children arrived in this country as had arrived during the preceding 10 years.
Unaccompanied refugee children fall into two categories. Under the quota system a number of children—many from Vietnam and Hong Kong—come to the United Kingdom with some degree of planning, prior knowledge and agreement and with the co-operation of voluntary organisations, in particular the Save the Children Fund. The situation is not entirely satisfactory. There are deficiencies in the planning and assessment of such children. Up to 2,000 children came to this country from Vietnam, often via Hong Kong. A small number of those children were unaccompanied. There should be better knowledge of the needs of individual children obtained, if possible, before they arrive in the United Kingdom, including a
1452
proper family history, information about friends, extended family and neighbours who are in this country.
The second group of children are those for whom no plans have been made. They come to the notice of the Refugee Council via the port of entry or refugee communities. They are aged up to 17 years and arrive due to serious conflicts in their own countries of origin, which include Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Angola, and Somalia. They have also included a number of Kurdish children.
Those children have usually experienced violence, hunger—indeed famine—and disruption of family life, often, though not always, through the death of a parent. Noble Lords may ask how they come to this country unaccompanied. It appears that their parents, relatives or friends find the money to buy a ticket. They obtain a ticket in the country of origin as a visitor. They arrive at the airport and ask a family to look after the child during the flight. When the child arrives at either London Airport or Gatwick the kind people who were looking after the child continue their journey and the child is left.
One small girl was left sitting in London Airport for two days. During that time all that she possessed was stolen. Another child was very kindly taken home by a woman. But she could not keep the child. It possessed a dirty scrap of paper on which was written, "Dollis Hill". The woman took the child to the police in Dollis Hill. They knew that in the area was a church hall where someone was looking after refugee children.
As may be imagined, those children need all the help that can be given. The difficulty is that most of the responsibility for looking after them falls on the directors of social services in Hillingdon, where London airport is based, and West Sussex, where Gatwick airport is based. Other local authorities offer help. Camden has opened a home for 20 children. These children need particular help. Very often they cannot speak English and they do not understand our way of life. They are disoriented and unhappy.
What should be done about them? The Refugee Council submitted to the Home Office and the Ministry of Health a paper entitled Better Child Care for Unaccompanied Refugee Children and Adolescents coming to the United Kingdom. First, I recommend that a conference should be held of the voluntary organisations in this country—of which we have many and they are splendid organisations—together with the statutory organisations and the Ministers concerned for the environment, the Home Office, and the health and immigration departments. A well-run conference would be of enormous value.
Secondly, we should set up a co-ordinating agency for refugee children to be funded by central government which will provide care for children and adolescents. That might be done by a voluntary organisation or a group of them. I am sure that the Save the Children Fund would wish to be involved. Such a co-ordinating agency should develop programmes and policies to meet the needs of refugee children.

1453
Thirdly, inevitably there is the question of resources. A child who is unaccompanied and homeless has a statutory right to be accepted into care. In any case, the West Sussex and Hillingdon local authorities would wish to accept such children into care because they would not wish them to stay in any part of London like an airport, or at a Home Office centre. It has to be faced that local authorities, if asked to take children into care (statutorily, they have to do it) are faced with the cost of £35,000 per child per year. That adds £5 to the community charge for each resident in the area where the children are taken into care.
Fourthly, there should be a survey and inspection of all the present projects where there are refugee children. Such children need particular care and attention, especially where their education and health are concerned.
Finally, I make two further points. There were great difficulties in this country when the Romanian children needed to be cared for. A number of people fetched them from Romania to this country. I pay tribute to Mr. Peter Thurnham of the other place and also to Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, who together managed to work in such a way that a structure has been set up to deal with children coming to this country. If such a good piece of work can be done in such a short time, I suggest that it can also be done for the unaccompanied refugee children. We shall be going into the EC very shortly. The European countries have made provision for the care and reception of unaccompanied refugee children. We shall not be in the vanguard, but I hope that we shall take our part in this work.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to begin to sum up this debate. Like everybody else, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, cannot be with us today. I certainly wish her well. Her presence is always welcome in your Lordships' Chamber.
Like others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on taking up this brief and for dealing with it extremely well. What he said about asylum seekers in this country needs to be underlined. It has been mentioned on many sides of the House. It is a pity that the noble. Lord the Lord Privy Seal is unable to be in his place today because some of the problems that we face come from legislation that he saw through onto the statute book when he was in another place. I believe that he has some minor technical problems in Ribble Valley which prevent him from being with us.
Like others, I was extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for saying what I am sure is in all our hearts; namely, that these are people-problems and that there are deep moral problems that we should face. These are not technical matters but issues that go to the very heart of humanity. I also apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie who would have spoken in this debate. He left for Europe about an
1454
hour ago in order to attend the Council of Europe Migration and Refugee Committee where he will be doing very good work on the same subject.
It is very easy to be overwhelmed by the size of the problem that faces us. It seems intractable. As has been said already, we are talking about 16 million refugees in various parts of the world. Many noble Lords have mentioned definitions for refugees. I believe we are all agreed that we are talking about people who cannot rely on the protection of the state of which they are citizens. Therefore they have to be protected by the international community. Sadly, as has already been said, there are signs that the richer nations of the world are beginning to turn their backs on refugees and to find excuses for not allowing them to enter their countries. They are finding ways of defining refugees so that they are no longer acceptable to these countries. They are sent back to face heaven only knows what trials and tribulations.
We must be conscious of the fact that only a very small proportion of refugees come to the West and that the major burden of the refugee problem is borne by countries which are already poor. Most refugees remain in developing countries and usually close to their country of origin. It has already been mentioned that the UNHCR budget is being squeezed. That is deplorable. I shall come back to that subject later.
It must be said that this country has a good record in comparison with many others in relation to its support for the UNHCR. Within its limited resources the ODA has been doing an extremely good job. I wish to pay tribute to the right honourable Lynda Chalker for the work she has done in that post. Many of us in this House who speak on the subject of transport would have been delighted to see her in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Transport, although I know that her officials would much prefer that she stays where she is. I daresay that the refugees of the world would agree with them.
There is an enormous mountain to climb. We have heard some statistics and I shall produce a few more, bearing in mind that each single statistic is a person involving feelings, aspirations and fears. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has a particular interest in South-East Asia. I am sorry that he cannot be with us today. There are about 200,000 Indo-Chinese still awaiting durable solutions in UNHCR camps. In the past 15 years about 2 million people have sought asylum in neighbouring countries in that part of the world. A comprehensive plan of action was produced at the International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees held in 1989. The procedures for establishing who is and who is not to be described as a refugee are now in place in all first countries of asylum. The UNHCR is playing a useful monitoring role, but it has been unable to increase staff levels to the levels that it would wish in order to do the job as well as it would like. It is not able properly to monitor those who are returning voluntarily, or supposedly voluntarily. In Hong Kong, where we have a special responsibility, the fate of unaccompanied children is causing considerable concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has rightly pointed to the situation in this

1455
country. One can imagine the situation in somewhere like Hong Kong where these people are faced with problems of interpretation. Without legal support and without the support of an organisation like the British Refugee Council their fate could be even worse.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the British Refugee Council. As noble Lords will know, I am fortunate to be chairman of the Middle East Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis is now the chairman of the Refugee Council. It is doing a wonderful job in this country, not least in briefing noble Lords so well for this debate.
I return to what I was saying about Hong Kong and Vietnamese refugees. The Government have granted £1 million to NGOs in Haiphong and Quan Minh, but what is necessary is that the structural problems of poverty in Vietnam itself should be dealt with. This is where the political arguments come into play. We have sadly been unprepared to help Vietnam to restore itself to being a prosperous country. People have mentioned refugees in Thailand coming from Cambodia, but around 100,000 refugees in Thailand have come from Burma. In some ways the recipient countries cannot be blamed for the less than perfect human rights granted to these people. Indeed the position there is very insecure because the Thai Government have passed legislation fining those who help what they describe as illegal Burmese refugees. I have to say that those who are liable to fines include foreign NGO workers who are trying to help these refugees.
Afghanistan was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and Sri Lanka was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. In Sri Lanka there are around 1.1 million internally displaced people: 180,000 have fled to India and 120,000 have fled to Europe. Africa has been mentioned. In Liberia around 700,000 refugees have been created by the civil war. As one goes round the world one is driven to the conclusion that man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds.
As chairman of the Middle East Committee of the Refugee Council my particular interest is in that area. The results of the Gulf war are something that we should not forget. Around 200,000 foreign residents from Iraq and Kuwait have fled as a result of the war. There are very considerable problems in the occupied territories because of the loss of remittances from the Gulf. The continued closure of schools and universities in that unhappy area is certainly not helping to bring about peace in that troubled land.
In Turkey there is the major problem of Kurdish refugees. Around 25,000 remain in camps to which they fled following the chemical weapons bombing in 1988. As a result of the war the Turkish Government have imposed an emergency curfew. Can the Minister say whether that curfew has yet been removed? The Turkish Government have not accepted them as refugees so their status is very uncertain because they are being refused access by UNHCR. Access to these camps has also been denied to the ambassadors of the
1456
European Community countries and to representatives of industrialised countries. Can the Government give any reassurance that they are putting pressure on the Turkish Government to try to improve the lot of those unfortunate people?
Time is running out but I should like to say this. At the end of the day these problems will not be solved by palliatives. They will be solved, as someone has already said, by getting rid of civil war and the strife which causes the refugee problems. In the meantime it is our duty as human beings and members of the world community to do everything in our power to assist these people through the United Nations agencies and in other ways.
We shall get a great deal of money in the begging bowl which we and the Americans have taken round the world. Vast sums of money will come to us for all the good things we have done in winning this war, a war which I have certainly supported from beginning to end, a necessary evil if you like. A great deal of money will flow into our coffers. Could not a small amount of it be diverted to the United Nations relief organisations? Would that be too much to ask at this time?
7.25 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for having declared my interest in this debate for me. I am delighted that he should have paid tribute to the Refugee Council and I am delighted that he is a colleague of mine there.
This has been a remarkable debate. The whole House, as has been said on a number of occasions, is indebted to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for having initiated it. For me it has been an extremely moving debate, marked by testimony given by people with considerable expertise and, above all, with deep interest in resolving the difficulties confronted all too often by refugees, by those who are seeking asylum.
In opening the debate my noble friend made a very eloquent, probing and important speech. He raised a number of questions. One of the most important goes to the very heart of the debate about refugees, whether it is in national or international terms. I refer to the need for getting rid of the secrecy which tends to shroud these matters and to which I shall return in a European dimension in a moment or two.
If I may say so, the Government would do well to ponder hard and long—but not too long—on the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. They were ideas that need to be acted on or at least clearly responded to. I welcome what she had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was quite right, as were a number of other noble Lords, in seeking to put the situation in its true perspective. There are 16 million recognised refugees—there are many more than that really—in the world today. Most live in refugee camps in developing countries. Only a very small proportion come to the West—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made that point and an even tinier proportion come to this country. It is those very poor countries in the world which are

1457
usually adjoining a serious problem that gives rise to refugees which have to shoulder the main burdens. They find themselves in situations where it is extraordinarily difficult for them to do that.
The Government express great concern about the increase in the number of asylum seekers who will be coming to this country. Regrettably, perhaps predictably, they are proposing to be even more restrictive in their approach. I seriously regret that. On 7th February the Home Secretary told another place that the number of applications, which used to be about 4,000 a year, went up to an estimated 30,000 in 1990. He then went on to say that while we must obviously ensure that we provide a refuge for those who are fleeing from a well-founded fear of persecution, many of the people applying for political asylum are nothing more than economic migrants who prefer to live in Western Europe or our country rather than their own. He said that this was not what the refugee convention was intended to do. That introduced a pejorative and damaging note into the debate about refugees, and one is entitled to resent it.
For the most part there is nothing sinister about the motivations of those who come seeking political asylum. Of course there will be exceptions, but I suggest on the basis of the evidence that has been given to me by the Refugee Council that they are a small minority. People are escaping to Western Europe because of violations of human rights, because of warfare, because of civil wars, because they are fleeing from repression. It is sometimes very difficult to draw a line between somebody who is a genuine refugee and somebody who is a so-called economic refugee.
There are environmental refugees in the world today on a huge scale. They face conditions of soil erosion and deforestation and natural and technical disasters. Where are we to draw the line in the contemporary situation to take account of that too? They too are driven from their homelands. According to the United Nations environment programme there are around 500 million environmental refugees at the present time. What is required from the wealthier countries of the world—I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—is a much clearer, much more humanitarian and much more transparent policy of asylum for refugees. That goes hand in hand with more imaginative policies towards the developing world to deal with questions of debt, technology exchange and true partnership. We need to give much more help to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, a point made by my the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I need not elaborate on it, but I agree with everything he had to say.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon rightly said that refugees are not just statistics or problems, they are human beings. Often they are children alone in the world crying out for decent treatment and for help, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], rightly stated. Too often refugees, whether children or adults, are treated as pawns in the arena of world politics. We have to recognise that fact.
I come to the role of the European Community, albeit somewhat briefly. Will the Europe of 1992 be
1458
open for trade and closed to refugees—closed to compassionate ideas? The worrying signs and unhappy omens are there to be seen. Policies which affect refugees are dealt with in what is known as the Trevi Group and the ad hoc group on immigration. Encompassed in their deliberations are matters affecting illegal immigration, so often confused and wrongly confused with the issues of refugees, drugs and terrorists. That in itself encourages an unfortunate treatment of the refugee problem.
The problem is compounded, as has been rightly said, by the secrecy surrounding the activities of these groups. There is no consultation or openness. No one knows what goes on there. The Commission itself is relegated to being almost a bystander in these matters. We know that developing within what is known as the Dublin Convention is a one chance only rule for asylum seekers across the whole European Community. That is very dangerous indeed because we know that support will not be given by this Government—the junior Minister said this in a Written Answer of 21st February—to the setting up of a European appeal court to give a right of appeal against a refusal to grant asylum. That is deplorable.
In the few moments I have left I turn to the domestic scene. I shall add one or two observations to those that have already been made. Reference was made to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, an odious Act. It is odious because it takes no account of the obvious difficulties that confront people fleeing from persecution in obtaining documents which can be validated. Airline staff become immigration officers, untrained to boot. But now we hear that the Government are proposing to increase the fine from £1,000 to £2,000 per person and to extend the requirements for visas. Will the Minister say whether that is true?
The Government are also seeking to reduce the number of asylum seekers being given permission to remain. What they are going to do as far as we can see is to cut down the number of those who are given exceptional leave to remain. That represents a major risk. The Government assert that those in that classification have no claim under the Geneva Convention. Many of them are genuine refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution. They may be compelled to go back to the perils from which they have fled. We know that mistakes have been made —serious mistakes—regarding the Tamils and the Kurds. The courts have found against the Government—rather late in the day, because those people were wrongly forced to go back. I hope that the Minister will apologise for what occurred on those occasions.
There is also the question of the resettlement of refugees. The local authorities and voluntary agencies must be given more help, particularly those local authorities which assume willingly the responsibility for dealing with them, as against some local authorities which perhaps characteristically refuse to do so, notably Wandsworth and Westminster. We need a national response to the refugee issue. We need more help for the local authorities and the voluntary agencies, which are strapped for money. I hope that

1459
the report of the Cabinet sub-committee review, when it comes to be available, will be published—a request made by my noble friend earlier in the debate.
I should like to have said something about Hong Kong. I am deeply concerned about some of the things going on there. However, I do not have the time. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, particularly towards children, a more compassionate attitude will be taken. Translation methods should be perfected regarding these people. We need to ensure that the indignity which is heaped on refugees there and in this country is eradicated from the political agenda.
I conclude on this note. There are so many refugee problems in the world about which one could have spoken. Some have been selected very movingly during the course of the debate. I hope and pray that the Government as a whole—Mrs. Chalker has been rightly picked out by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for commendation—will evince a much more understanding and realistic view on our own position in the world regarding refugees than has been the case in the past. It is an obligation that rests on the shoulders of the Government.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for stepping in at short notice to introduce the debate. I am sorry that it should have been necessary for him to do so and I sincerely hope that we shall see the noble Baroness back in her place in the very near future.
I thank noble Lords for their extremely well informed and wide-ranging contributions to this debate on the international problem of refugees. There is much more that can be said about refugees than we have time to cover today, and more about our policy towards refugees than I can attempt to say in the time I have available. But I should like to set out briefly the main lines of our policy.
The 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, and its 1967 protocol, provide the main international framework for the recognition and treatment of refugees. Indeed these instruments give the accepted definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her country of nationality who has a:
"well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
The United Kingdom has ratified both these international instruments. The 1951 United Nations convention and its 1967 protocol form the basis of the United Kingdom's policy on refugees. We uphold the rule of international law, both at home and abroad, as laid out in these instruments.
It might be useful to illustrate the international refugee problem by looking at applications for asylum in this country. In 1988 we received only about 5,000 asylum applications. The Home Office estimates that in 1990 the tally will reach about 30,000 when it is completed. Other Western countries report a similar picture. The surge cannot be attributed solely to the
1460
opening of borders, welcome as that is, in Central and Eastern Europe: the great majority of applicants in this country are from Africa and Asia. The refugee problem is global. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are perhaps 16 million refugees worldwide. That is a staggering figure by anyone's standards.
The definition of a refugee contained in the 1951 UN convention does not by any means cover all people who choose to leave their country. UNHCR estimates that there are also perhaps about 80 million migrants throughout the world, excluding refugees. They represent about 2 per cent. of the world's population. Their numbers are more likely to rise than to fall. It is important to consider the root causes of migration. There are many factors which can push a person towards leaving his country; for example, war, poverty, large-scale natural disasters, ecological degradation, population pressures and, not least, human rights violations. Only the last of these can give rise to refugees. Equally there are the so-called "pull-factors" which tempt a person to leave his own country, to seek a new life in another. It is not pejorative to say that; it is a fact. We are fortunate to live in a free and democratic country. We have the opportunity to gain an education and a career. In short, we have the opportunity to better ourselves.
The right reverend Prelate said that it was fashionable to distinguish between political refugees and economic migrants. That distinction lies at the heart of the UN convention. The definition contained in the 1951 convention does not cover people whose primary motivation for leaving their country is a search for a better economic life. One of the challenges the international community faces is to preserve the institution of political asylum in the interests of true refugees. It is important for that reason not to allow the misuse of the asylum process. However, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the problems faced by other migrants who may often be in need of our humanitarian concern.
A most notable example of this concern has been shown by the Hong Kong authorities who at great cost, and at a time of considerable uncertainty, have provided a safe haven for some 185,000 Vietnamese asylum seekers since 1975. The cornerstone of our policy is that genuine refugees should enjoy protection, but that migrants should return to their country of origin to migrate through legitimate channels if they wish. Screening was introduced in 1988 in collaboration with UNHCR to give effect to this policy. So far 34 per cent. of asylum seekers have been screened; of these only 20 per cent. have been determined to be refugees. Hong Kong has about 13,000 people who have been determined not to be refugees. The Hong Kong Government and the UNHCR will continue to work closely together to achieve the orderly return of those people as soon as possible. Only in this way can the rights of genuine refugees be protected.
The international refugee problem is, as I said, a global one. We should not be under any illusions. Our ability to influence events, even with greater efforts and the best international co-operation, is strictly

1461
limited. The main aim of our policy is to support, both politically and financially, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The High Commissioner has a mandate from the UN Secretary-General to protect and assist refugees and to search for durable solutions to refugee problems. For example, we are chairing a UNHCR working group in Geneva of interested countries looking at the long-term solution to refugee problems and the protection of refugees. We fully support that objective. We welcome the appointment of the new UN High Commissioner Mrs. Sadako Ogata who took up her appointment on 18th February. We are regularly one of UNHCR's highest donors. In 1990 we contributed about £19.3 million—about 29 per cent. of the contributions came from government sources —and the ICRC contributed some £5 million. We support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. In 1990 we contributed about £5.5 million. We also fully support the International Committee of the Red Cross which provides assistance to refugees, often in sensitive political areas where other relief agencies cannot work. We also contributed about £5 million to ICRC appeals.
Refugees and other displaced people often need urgent humanitarian assistance. We currently devote about £60 million to providing such assistance, most of which goes to refugees. A typical example of this need followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on 2nd August which displaced large numbers of foreign nationals who needed urgent assistance. We responded quickly providing some £11 million through the international relief organisations such as the International Red Cross and the International Organisition for Migration. Some of that money was channelled through the European Community. The international relief agencies provided emergency life sustaining assistance to the refugees trapped on Iraq's border with Jordan. But our contribution also went towards providing a long-term solution by assisting over 160,000 people to return to their own countries. Other resources were then mobilised, for example, from the World Bank, to help the refugees re-settle in their own countries.
Perhaps I may now turn to the domestic implications of large-scale applications for asylum. It is the arrival of asylum seekers and the determination of their claims for protection under the 1951 convention which makes refugee matters most obviously impinge on the domestic scene in this country. I referred earlier to the sharp rise in the number of asylum applications we have received in recent years in this country. That is part of a general upward trend in Western countries over the last decade. There were well over 400,000 applications in Europe last year. Each case is considered individually against the criteria of the convention. If an asylum seeker is found to have,
"a well-founded fear of persecution",
and there is no other country to which he should reasonably look for protection, he is granted asylum in the United Kingdom.
1462
Most asylum seekers in Europe are not refugees. A significant proportion are trying to use asylum channels to circumvent normal immigration controls. The motives of many more are mixed. The problem cannot, therefore, be addressed solely in a refugee context: it is intertwined with the broader migratory pressures in the world to which I have alluded. The Government have an obligation to maintain their policy of firm and fair control of immigration to this country. Their asylum policy and procedures must balance and reconcile those different obligations.
The rapid increase in the number of asylum seekers to the present unprecedented levels have placed our arrangements for the determination of their claims under considerable strain. It already takes about 14½ months to decide an asylum application, and the backlog of over 35,000 cases in the asylum division is growing.
The Government are conducting an urgent review of all their arrangements for asylum seekers. The staffing and structure of the asylum division are being addressed in that review, together with arrangements for receiving asylum seekers and for maintaining them while their cases are considered.
In the long term the solution to many refugee problems will only come with the realisation of what is the fundamental aim of British foreign policy: the creation of a stable and prosperous world order where nations can live in peace and security and where business and trade can create wealth and prosperity. We seek to avert conflict and to promote regional security. There is no better example of this than our contribution to the coalition effort to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. His invasion devastated Kuwait, created fear and misery for every Kuwaiti, and destroyed the livelihood of thousands of foreign nationals who were forced to flee the country leaving their jobs and possessions behind them.
Another major objective of our foreign policy is to encourage what can perhaps best be referred to as "good government". That means encouraging governments to make the best use of available resources for the long term good of their people. Good government calls for the remedies of law to be made available to the ordinary citizen; for an end to corruption and to the self-serving greed of elites; for an end to excessive military spending; and for the creation of a just and impartial electoral system. We can best achieve those aims by making progress in these areas a criterion for our aid.
I shall now try to deal with some of the points which were raised during the debate. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked what publication the review would receive. No decision has yet been taken on how to promulgate the results of the review. He said how unhappy he was with the procedures, and that they needed examination and overhaul. Those procedures are being reviewed at present, as are MPs' rights of representation. The aspects of policy, which he stated are Labour Party policy, also fall within the scope of the present review.

1463
My noble friend Lord Brentford asked about Ugandan refugees in Kenya. They well exemplify the complexity of the long-standing refugee problem. I cannot comment in detail. Our policy is to encourage voluntary repatriation, to use the ODA, if appropriate, and to enlist the help of voluntary agencies. Our approach is multilateral through, for example, UNHCR and in company with other donors. We do not see it as being a problem for us alone.
The right reverend Prelate drew attention to Afghan refugees. It is 11 years since Russia invaded Afghanistan and imposed a communist regime acceptable to the Soviet Union which led to one-third of the Afghan population leaving the country. There are still some 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, mainly in camps near the border. Another 2 million are in Iran. The majority are unlikely to return until the fighting is over and security is improved.
We have given £70 million towards Afghan refugee relief and resettlement programmes since 1980, including over £17 million in the past two years. Most has been sent directly to the United Nations specialised agencies, the ICRC and British charities such as the Save the Children Fund and Afghan Aid. The right reverend Prelate made the point that the wealth gap is immoral and destablising. I agree. He said that we need to make greater efforts to overcome poverty. We have a large and well-targeted bilateral aid programme and make an equally substantial contribution to multilateral development agencies. All that helps to tackle fundamental problems which, I agree, generate refugees and economic migrants in the first place.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Hylton, asked about the training of immigration officials. My right honourable friend already pays close attention to that point. The UNHCR and outside academics are involved in training sessions and the further development of training is under active consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, talked about the shortfall in the UNHCR finances. In 1989, it faced a deficit of 38 million US dollars. However, sensible reforms in its administration were undertaken and through that and the generosity of other donor governments, that deficit was absorbed in 1990 and there is now no shortfall. He asked about an Oxford seminar. The ODA will attend. On forced repatriation to Cambodia, the United Nations plan for a Cambodia settlement takes full account of international obligations, including those under the 1951 convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about Iraqi visa holders. Any Iraqi national, like any other national, who claims to fear persecution if returned to his own country will have his case fully considered against the criteria of the 1951 convention. Deportations are a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who will no doubt want to take account of all recent developments before taking a final decision.
1464
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked for a guarantee that tortured asylum seekers will not be detained. It would be unrealistic to give such an unequivocal guarantee. It can take time to establish the facts and some applicants may falsely claim to have been tortured. However, I can give an assurance that the Home Office is fully aware of and sensitive to the needs of that group of people. He said we were fobbing off refugees with exceptional leave. The Government's policy is carefully and correctly to apply the criteria of the 1951 convention in every case. There is no question of denying refugee status to those entitled to it.
The noble Lord asked me about the rate of social security payments. Arrangements for maintaining asylum seekers while their cases are decided are included in the review.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for showing some understanding of the problem and of the difficulties of administering policy in this field. He pointed to what he claimed were insufficient resources for the determination system. With the massive increase in applications, it is clear that there is now a total mismatch between the case load and the resources currently available to process it. That is a key element in the current review.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned unaccompanied minors. That is a difficult area within the overall question of reception arrangements for asylum seekers, but it is also something that is being addressed in the current review. I can give my noble friend the assurance that I shall pass on her proposals to the Department of Health and the Home Office. I know that it is a matter that they are looking at closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me about the Kurds in Turkey. We have made available £250,000 to help the Kurdish refugees in Turkey and to improve the situation in the camps. I regret the Turkish government's decision not to go ahead with the project.
We have persistently sought better treatment for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. We share the concern felt about the hardships they have undergone during the recent crisis and, with our European Community partners, have increased our aid to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me about visas and carriers' liability. Those matters are also being considered in the present review. I cannot give an answer at this stage. Press reports are inevitably speculative.
The international problem of refugees is one which has risen high on the international agenda. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in international efforts to find solutions to the most difficult and intractable problems in which we encourage the whole international community to play its part. I can assure your Lordships that it is an area to which the Government will continue to devote the greatest attention.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have had a valuable debate on a subject of highest importance. I am grateful to noble Lords, the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate for their contributions based on their experience and their deep feelings about the plight of millions of our fellow men and women and their children. I am grateful also to the Minister for his exposition of government policy. He gave us a great deal of valuable information which we shall study carefully, although I am bound to say, with great respect to him, that he has not completely allayed our apprehensions about the gravity of the matter.
We shall need to return to these problems again. We cannot allow them to remain on the shelf. It is essential that the report of the interdepartmental committee is published to enable us and the country generally to study the Government's policy and to enable the report to be the basis for a further debate in the House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Middle East Peace and Security
7.59 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the means by which they, and the other governments who have made use of the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, intend to "restore international peace and security" in the Gulf area and in the Middle East in general.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I was a child my father often visited Baghdad. I did not like it because I thought it might be a place where they bagged dads. He was chairman of the Iraq Currency Board which reinvented the Iraqi dinar. Later he was chairman of the Kuwait Investment Board and of the British Bank of the Middle East. So my youth was full of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran, and I understand how closely involved in their fate this country has been. I put this Question down because I gathered from the Minutes of Proceedings that the House was not to be given the opportunity to discuss the peace after the war for five weeks. By that time, all the decisions would have been taken and we would only be able to discuss accomplished facts.
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on going to Kuwait and Riyadh today. Facing him are some of the gravest decisions over which he will ever have to preside. With the cold war finished, it is now, this week, that we shall decide whether we should put our authority and experience, and to some extent that of the European Community too, behind the United Nations system and found a new order on that; or whether we should remain where we were under the previous Prime Minister, spear-carriers in ordinary to the United States.
Resolution 678 speaks of peace and security, and they depend on justice. This we have learnt in our own countries in Western Europe and we now hope in the whole of Europe. Peace and justice in the Middle East will be conditioned partly by the kind of war it has
1466
been and partly by the injustices which were there before the war. The war itself has been remarkable for its justification under Security Council resolutions. That will make a just peace easier. However, it has also been remarkable for the one-sidedness of its fatal casualties. Most estimates available to the press say that casualties on the Iraqi side were perhaps 100,000 military and another 100,000 civilians; on our side, about 140 military. That is a ratio of about 1,500 to one. To give one more figure, it is more than 1 per cent. of the population of Iraq. It is easy for any of us to scale that up for countries with larger populations.
It may well be that time will show that some military decisions on our side led to unnecessary slaughter, as well as on Saddam's side. Those we already know well. There were 110,573 bombing sorties flown. Were they all necessary? This balance of death will he remembered around the world and will affect relations among all states for a long time to come. The negotiations must be undertaken in full knowledge of this.
The worst prospect before us is that Iraq should become like the Lebanon with Shia cantons backed by Iran, Sunni cantons, Kurdish cantons and others, all at each other's throats. What can we non-Arab victors do to avoid this? We can only support the Arab victors in the best of what they can propose, working with what we hope will be a newly clubbable Iran and, as soon as possible, with reasonable Iraqis. For any of us to try to take control of the Middle East oil on which Western Europe and Japan depend would make it impossible to do this work.
Then there is Israel. The Arabs see a long lasting injustice: an alien Israel was forced on them. The Israelis see the opposite injustice: their neighbours refuse to acknowledge their internationally agreed right to exist. A settlement must be found because all UN resolutions have the same weight and UN members are obliged to enforce all of them equally. The resolutions about Iraq have been enforced with ferocious speed. The resolutions designed over the past quarter of a century to settle the Arab-Israeli dispute even-handedly are not enforced, and the injustice continues. Of course the existence of Israel must be accepted by her neighbours. The question is, what Israel? The nuclear power under US protection? Of course Israel must withdraw from her occupation of foreign territory and allow self determination to the Palestinians. Her willingness to do so would presumably be affected by conditions that could be attached to the enormous loan she now requests of the United States and by other subventions in the future.
Can there be a knight's move? Can the Arabs and the Israelis start to collaborate on some huge United Nations-sponsored, Gulf-financed international scheme for the economic benefit of all? Surely the Weizmann Institute has plans up its sleeve that could provide a start. Then what a glory Israel could become in the world, turning her immense resources of wisdom and skills to the good of the whole Middle East.
There is then another injustice which afflicts the Arab world—an economic one. It is that the revenues

1467
of the oil-rich, people-poor states are not used to develop the oil-poor, people-rich ones, but invested abroad to earn interest which shores up anachronistic monarchs, some of whom torture and mutilate women and criminals. Unless the brotherhood of the Arab nation stretches across all its lands, the present monarchies will simply go the way of Iraq and Libya before them.
We must also decide in the United Nations whether we want the world to continue treating its arms industries and arms trade simply as one remunerative branch of the various economies. This week, the US magazine Aviation Week already reports:
"Following their successful demonstration in the Gulf War, high technology weapons, especially precision-guided munitions, are expected on military shopping lists round the world".
The magazine goes on to advise investors how to find the firms most likely to profit from the new arms races. Is that what we want?
Arms exports are attractive because they enable us to produce arms for ourselves at a lower unit cost. But the arms race is largely what incapacitated the Soviet Union: so much wealth and skill going into unproductive activity. It is also what sent the United States into such colossal internal and external debt. The United States will never again be able to go round the world, mammoth begging bowl in hand. This time they have been promised 53 billion dollars; but they have of course received far less. On another occasion, those who are required to pay the piper are likely to be choosier about the tune. They are likely to feel that a more honourable channel for sharing the costs of UN actions is to be found through the UN itself.
The settlement, whatever it is, will have to be negotiated and defined in the UN, promulgated by the UN and, if necessary, enforced by the UN, using troops under UN command. The countries that must take part in these processes are first the Arab states. It is excellent news that Egypt and Syria have today set up a joint peacekeeping force, financed by the Gulf states and intended to be the nucleus of an Arab force. Apart from the Arabs, Israel must take part in the settlement procedure and Iran.
After that, the ability to help and the duty to try to help diminish as we get further away. Four of the big five are far removed from the Middle East, but the Soviet Union is not. It is fortunate that it now follows a scrupulously pacific and UN-orientated policy. The states which can usefully try to take the lead in the Security Council and the General Assembly will not be those which are strongly identified with one side or the other in the Arab Israeli wars, and not those which, like the United States, are in arrears with their United Nations dues, which reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and do not accept, for instance, the Geneva Convention on Indiscriminate Weapons. The new order in the Middle East has to be an Arab-Israeli-Iranian one embedded in the UN. The UN role must embody justice. It will be most effectively upheld by law abiding states.
As I have said before, the settlement must rest on arms control. In fairness, we should remember Iraq's proposals of 2nd May last year in the Preparatory Committee for the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that the Middle East should become free of weapons of mass destruction. At that time I asked the Government their view of those proposals, but they replied in relation to some Egyptian proposals. Iraq had already become invisible to them. Israel is partly invisible to the Government even now. Ministers feign to know nothing of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, and thus to have no opinion on it. However, their knowledge and opinion of Pakistan's programme are expressed freely enough, and are sound.
Iraq's arms cannot be limited unless those of Iran and the nuclear state of Israel are also limited. We must remember the Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear installation in 1981. Israel's arms cannot be limited unless Syria's arms are limited, and so it goes on. The agenda is an agenda for the whole world. That being so, a sharp reduction is required in the general hypocrisy level of the arms exporting nations: principally the five permanent members of the Security Council, then Germany, Brazil and Argentina.
That is what I think. What does Her Majesty's Government think?
8.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I, and I am sure other noble Lords, will wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for enabling us to debate this subject this evening. It is a timely opportunity to consider the post-war situation. The noble Lord has eloquently posed some of the problems and mentioned important factors. I hope to add to the debate my thoughts on some other matters which arise. I particularly welcome this opportunity to debate this matter because it is four weeks since my Motion in your Lordships' House on collective security and how best to deter potential aggressors in future through Chapter VII of the Charter.
In the Gulf the United Nations has successfully put into effect Chapter VII, which authorises measures including armed force, to counter and reverse aggression. Since 2nd August the action prescribed in the Charter has been carried out on the lines contemplated by its authors. As in the case of Korea 40 years earlier, much depended on the immediate and massive response of the United States. I have observed with interest and supported what has been happening because I was in the United Kingdom mission in New York in the early days of the United Nations when we were examining and trying out for the first time the sections of the Charter. In that capacity I participated in the emergency meeting of the Security Council on the Sunday morning in June 1950 which was the day after North Korea attacked South Korea.
Our admiration and gratitude goes to the British forces in the Gulf and to our allies in the coalition for what they have achieved. We should especially congratulate the commanders in the field. Collective

1469
security has been upheld under Chapter VII. In the difficult task now before us—the noble Lord, Lord Kenner, described that task—Chapter VIII of the Charter is also applicable. Chapter VIII authorises regional arrangements and regional agencies to work with the Security Council when necessary. That may well be needed in restoring and maintaining peace and stability in the region. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Hurd, stated several weeks ago that he would be aiming for such regional arrangements after the Security Council resolutions had been complied with and Kuwait had been liberated. I hope to hear the Government's thinking on that matter this evening.
The countries of the Middle East must themselves take the main parts and accept responsibilities in reaching settlements. The United States and the United Kingdom with their allies may have to be initiators and catalysts. I hope that our forces can be withdrawn as soon as it is clear that the danger of further hostilities has passed. There may however have to be some form of United Nations peacekeeping force in some area or areas. That would preferably be composed of smaller members of the United Nations which had no direct interests in the region.
The overall authority of the United Nations should be maintained through the Security Council. The recent co-operation among the five permanent members is a welcome augury for the future and could be a helpful influence upon the Middle East countries. The United Nations is only as good as its members. Its success depends particularly on the efforts and cohesion of its leading members. It would be a mistake to think that the Secretary-General and his staff are more than the framework by which the world organisation enables its members to assemble, reach conclusions and take decisions. When decisions are taken by agreement within the Security Council, the United Nations can be a powerful force—this has just been demonstrated in the Gulf crisis—despite the belittling criticism that has come from some quarters in the past.
I hope that the Soviet Union will play a role in the Middle East in the work that lies ahead. It is certainly entitled to do so as a neighbour of the Gulf countries although it has preoccupations within its own borders. In the past we would have been worried that the Soviet Union might wish to make trouble in the Middle East, particularly for the Western countries. I believe that that risk is much less evident now. It would be wise to try to include the Soviet Union in the arrangements.
Much negotiation and work on regional arrangements in the Middle East is now before us. To deter aggression and keep the peace there and in the rest of the world, we must still depend upon Chapter VII. I urged that in the debate on 6th February. We should build on the success that has now been achieved. There are ways in which the readiness of the United Nations to act can be improved, for example financial and medical contributions, where appropriate, can be considered as contingency arrangements. We do not have to spend six or seven months in a crisis before bringing such arrangements forward.
1470
We must make the best use of the Charter as it stands rather than try to rewrite it, even though it is 46 years old. Such a step would reopen controversies which might take years to settle. Within its terms more contingency planning should be carried out in preparation for breaches of the peace. Improved readiness that was clearly visible would help to deter any country contemplating an act of aggression. I believe that if Saddam had known that the United Nations would react so efficiently and effectively, he would not have embarked on his unfortunate invasion of Kuwait. The deaths of his own citizens and the damage to their property and cities—the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to that—could have been avoided.

In the post-war situation the arrangements may be complicated by calls for war crimes trials. I should like in closing to say a word on that issue because I believe that some clarification is needed. War crimes can be divided into three categories. The first is responsibility for the original aggression. That usually applies to the leaders of the nation concerned. The Nuremberg tribunal was set up to deal with Hitler's gang and a few of the top people associated with it. It was a special tribunal. The International Court at the Hague does not deal with such issues. It has two main duties: to deal with disputes between nations and to give advisory opinions on international law.
The second category governs the rules of warfare for combatants. Those have been built up in the Hague and Geneva conventions. They deal with the treatment of prisoners and wounded and a whole range of matters relating to humanitarian issues. The conventions have proved to be worth while. In World War II, even in the greatest confusion, in the height of battle with high explosive and metal flying around, it was helpful to have a code which the combatants recognised. Wounded and prisoners on both sides benefited as a result. We do not yet know whether there have been breaches of those rules, but that does not appear to be one of the serious allegations arising from the Gulf war.
The third category is crimes against humanity, meaning civilians. That was a new category which was introduced at the end of World War II in order to deal with crimes committed at the concentration camps and with the elimination of huge numbers of civilians. That was not something which had been considered a war crime in 1939: it was something new and dreadful and was treated as a crime against humanity.
It appears likely that in the conflict which has just ended and during the past seven months atrocities have been committed in Kuwait in the form of killings and torturings. If such atrocities are confirmed there may be a case for trials in Kuwaiti courts. Presumably that is the jurisdiction in which such alleged criminals would be dealt with.
It is necessary to clarify the distinction between the three categories of war crime, and I hope that we shall not find the post-war arrangements that we are discussing this evening complicated by problems of that kind.

1471
It is a relief that Kuwait has been liberated and that Saddam's aggression has been reversed. I am sure that everyone in the country is relieved about that. However, there remains the task of building a lasting peace in the Middle East. That will not be easy and it deserves the concentrated attention and understanding of the rest of the world.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for raising this important issue at this very apposite time. It would be a dereliction of the duty of Parliament not to debate the affairs of the last few weeks for a period of five weeks.
Before considering how the United Nations can operate during the post-war period we need to consider what has happened since 15th January and to draw up a balance sheet of the gains and the losses. A major gain is the fact that the Iraqis have left Kuwait. Everybody who is concerned with international law has always put that as their first demand despite the fact that a good deal of Iraq, as we forecast, has been devastated in the process.
Secondly, the defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations has been met head on, as it should be once that international body has expressed itself so clearly on the subject of the aggression against Kuwait.
Thirdly, the United Nations itself as an organisation has been pitchforked into the forefront of international politics. I shall express some reservations about that later. It has become one of the major players in the international game and is bound to remain so. Fourthly, there has been at least a faint sign of some degree of co-operation among some Arab nations which holds out hopes of further co-operation in the area in the future which has been so lacking in the past.
Finally, I am certain that we are all thankful for the small number of allied casualties, although every single casualty represents a tragedy and we feel for the relatives of those who suffered in that way.
On the other side of the balance sheet, what are the losses? Following my noble friend Lord Kennet, I suggest that the first is the inhuman massacre of both Iraqis and Kuwaitis. The reduction of civilian life in Iraq to a point of savagery is bound to have a profound effect on the world community. It is tragic that in this war, as in the invasion of Panama, there has deliberately been not even an estimate of the casualties suffered on the other side. We still do not know how many civilians were killed in Panama. There has been a deliberate reluctance to use what the Americans call a body count of the casualties inflicted during this war.
A barbarous disregard of human life has been shown. I was in the United States for a considerable period during the Vietnam war. I remember very distinctly the effect on both the participants in the war and on the spectators. It was devastating and tragic. It continues. We have seen a coarsening of public
1472
consciousness and a dehumanising of public discussion, fuelled by nauseating headlines in the tabloid press. I shudder to think of the effect of those events on the children of today, not just in this country but all over the world.
One should remember that these actions have been carried out in the name of the United Nations under Resolution 678. I venture to suggest that the resolution was never intended to be used in that way. Indeed, one can argue that the carrying into effect of Resolution 678 was in itself illegal because the Chinese had abstained. According to Chapter 27, Clause 3, of the charter there has to be concurrence of all five permanent members of the Security Council. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly spoke of the Geneva conventions. Surely the Geneva conventions do not allow the bombing of cities that took place during the past few weeks.
I repeat that that was carried out in the name of the United Nations. What is the effect on most of the world, and in particular on the third world? The effect has surely been to show the rest of the world that that is the method chosen by the powerful members of the United Nations when they identify an issue which they consider to be against their national interests.
To most of the world over the past few weeks it has seemed that the first world—the developed world—has been devastating a third world country, and that it has been selective action. There have been many similar aggressive acts on which the United Nations has not acted. That has not been because of the Cold War but because they have involved one of the permanent members of the Security Council. We have seen the imposition of United States policy with the use of the United Nations.
Thirdly, and in some ways in the long term most tragically, the peaceful means of resolving conflict through the United Nations, devised during the period in which economic sanctions were applied and backed up by military defence of Saudi Arabia, have been sabotaged. Never again, or at least for the foreseeable future, can one expect the United Nations to be able to say, "We have the peaceful means to solve an international conflict without military force".
What has been left from the devastation? It is hardly international peace and security. We are left with a jockeying for power in the Middle East between Iran—the Iranians were the enemies and after the deposition of the Shah became the enemies of the West and the excuse for arming Saddam Hussein—Turkey, Syria (have we forgotten Lockerbie and the detestation expressed toward the Syrians in this country and the West?) and Israel with, on the sidelines, the complicating factor of the Kurds and their desire for Kurdistan.
Meanwhile, the central issue in the Middle East remains—the issue of Palestine. Hopes of settlement in Palestine have been undermined as a result of the Gulf action. They have been undermined partly through the attitude of the PLO but also—this is where I fear for the future—because the Jewish lobby in the United States is so powerful throughout both

1473
Houses of Congress, as we all know. The subsidies that go into the elections within Congress are so dependent upon the Jewish lobby that it seems doubtful whether that lobby will ever allow an equitable settlement so far as concerns Israel and the Palestinians.
Finally, the consequence of the war has been a renewed and accelerated drive to a new arms race. As I pointed out, it was we who armed Saddam Hussein as a buffer against the Iranians. We in the West provided him with the weapons that were used against our forces. Now every country in the Middle East is sending IOUs to the United States, France, Britain and Germany for renewed provision of arms. The Syrians, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Iranians, the Turks, the Kuwaitis and the Israelis have all been promised extra subsidies to renew their military machines. What a terrifying prospect! Over the past few weeks we have seen what armaments do. We have seen that once they are destroyed the vultures gather in order to replace them. As a result of the way in which the coalition was put together the IOUs are now coming in, with a terrifying prospect for any future peace and any hope of a peaceful world in the Middle East.
I should like to make four short suggestions. I do not make any of them with great confidence. The United Nations has to play a part. I do not agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the secretariat of the United Nations. I believe that if there had been a Dag Hammarskjöld as Secretary-General over the past 12 months, the actions of the United Nations would have been vastly different. Dag Hammarskjöld would not have allowed himself to be used as Perez de Cuellar has been used in order to further United States policy. But however long it takes, the United Nations must play a crucial role in the search for peace.
As mentioned during the debate a month ago initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, we must resuscitate the Military Staff Committee. With the military representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council there is there the opportunity to use the United Nations as a military means of peace-keeping based upon the consensus of the Big Five. That is my first suggestion.
Secondly, we must upgrade the Sanctions Committee. That committee should now examine what happened during the period in which sanctions were imposed. What were the effects not just on the economy of Iraq but on the military machine of Iraq? How long would it have taken to undermine that military machine? That is a job for the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations and it has never been allowed to do it.
Thirdly, and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Kennet, not just armaments control but disarmament is essential if we are not to have a repeat of the war under which we have suffered during the past two or three weeks. That means control and control of the market forces which emanate from the armament producers, the armament builders, to sell and to persuade to buy. Those are the market forces and they
1474
must be controlled centrally by the United Nations but also in the case of each government. It is no good leaving it to voluntary control by the armament makers.
Finally, there has to be a peace conference. Again I feel little confidence that in the near future such a peace conference can remove the causes of war in the Middle East, still less bring peace. However, the United Nations was set up in order to remove the scourge of war. It has a responsibility and a duty immediately to find the means to hold some kind of peace conference at which people can talk to each other across national boundaries in the hope that some understanding can arise out of this tragedy and that people can learn that the only alternative to its repetition is to talk peace to each other.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing this vitally important subject to our attention by initiating the debate today. I wish to follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. He spoke of our need to find ways and means of supporting the prime efforts of the United Nations to cut out wars. Noble Lords will forgive me for reminding them that I am a physician. When I was a professor I had the privilege of visiting medical schools. I visited them on occasions in Jerusalem and in various countries in the Gulf. I believe that if we had the right imaginative spirit from the Mediterranean to the Gulf it is not impossible that a new order could begin to emerge.
My reason for saying that arises from my visits to Oman where I had the great privilege of meeting His Majesty the Sultan on several occasions and of being a close confidant of his mother, the Queen Mother of Oman. She once made a remark to me which encourages me to believe that we may be able to encourage a spirit of collaboration and reconciliation. The prophet Job is buried not far from Salalah, which is the Queen Mother's tribal country. When she realised that the tomb was in serious disrepair, she arranged for it to be resuscitated. I went in one of the Omani motor cars—sadly it was a Mercedes—up the mountain to the tomb. I found two Omanis in prayer. I returned and said to Her Majesty, "It is of great encouragement to me, your Majesty, that you, a great Arab lady and great leader, have refurbished the tomb of an Israeli Jewish prophet". She is a very remarkable woman. Her reply through her first-class interpreter was memorable. She said, "We have to learn rapidly in this part of the world that we must always respect the efforts of good men".
I hope and pray that the emergence of such a spirit of reconciliation, and appreciation of good, in particular among the women in that part of the world, may be caught up in the peace conference that must come. The authority of women in that part of the world is rising. When I go to medical schools I am astonished at how many posts are being developed by women doctors.
I am sure that I reflect the views of many millions who have friends in both Israel and the Arab states

1475
when I say this. If there is anything that the Foreign Office would like any of us with intentions of helping reconciliation to do, do not hesitate to call on us. We should all be greatly honoured to help in any servile way in the most menial tasks in any important peace conference. It is an opportunity that I hope and pray the United Nations will seize, and show their real moral ethical authority to the world.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, whose eloquent plea for reconciliation I am sure struck a chord on all sides of the House. I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for a number of constructive suggestions about the future in the Middle East which I know will be warmly endorsed by my noble friends on these Benches.
The position now in the Middle East is so changeable and uncertain that it is dangerous to make predictions or to suggest or recommend lines of policy. What is the future in Iraq? Will Saddam Hussein stay? If so, he will certainly not have his old capacity for making aggression against his neighbours. But if he stays, it will be a terrible tragedy for the Iraqi people and perhaps most of all for the courageous Kurds and Shiah who are trying for a change of regime in Iraq.
On the other hand, he may be overturned. I imagine that that would be welcome to all in this Chamber. But it would be a bleak prospect for the unity of Iraq as a state and thus for stability in the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to possible Iranian ambitions in southern Iraq, and Turkish ambitions in Northern Iraq. The situation could be chaos and anarchy.
A few years ago I stood in the centre of Baghdad and surveyed those monstrous architectural tributes to Saddam Hussein. I could not resist saying to my companion,
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
That was only a few years ago, and already the lone and level sands are stretching far away in Iraq. It is an extraordinary vindication of a great poem written about the Middle East.
While Iraq is in turmoil, it is very hard to sketch out with confidence a new security system for the Middle East. It is encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, that so quickly and with such decision eight Arab governments have come together at Damascus and formed a treaty. We have to ask, "How does Iran fit into that?" We also have to ask "How does the new Iraq fit into it?" Will all the emirates survive the shock of the Gulf war, and if not, will Saudi Arabia allow the emirates to succumb?
Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly a great achievement so quickly to have reached a promising beginning. The Middle East is so full of formidable problems, to which no solutions are clearly visible at this stage. However, I submit to the Minister that there are one or two certainties from the point of view of Western countries.
1476
First, their contribution to security in the Middle East cannot be made directly. They can be made only through the United Nations, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, in support of Arab initiatives and with the co-operation or at least the acquiescence of the Soviet Union. That must be implanted as a basic principle of Middle East policy for the Western countries in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, suggested that perhaps the United Nations may produce its own military force under the military staffs committee. I remember that when the United Nations was formed—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I have this in common—we all thought that wars were going to be abolished by the Security Council, acting if necessary with armed force organised by the military staffs committee. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, still maintains some hopes in that direction; perhaps more than I do. I am torn as to whether that is the way forward for the Security Council or whether we should regard the Security Council as a legitimising organisation such as it was in fact in the Gulf war.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the noble Lord will remember, the Soviet Union decided that the military staffs committee should never get going even though it agreed to it in the charter. Therefore, that has been more or less a dead letter for the past 45 years. However, I do not believe that the agreements laid down in the charter are necessary. But as I said in my debate four weeks ago, I believe that provisional work could be done on contingency planning without necessarily doing everything which is in Chapter 7 of the charter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it may well be as the noble Lord says. I confess that I am agnostic. However, as a legitimising organisation the Security Council has a major part to play in military sanctions against those who offend against United Nations resolutions. Certainly, as I say, the future for western governments must be action through the United Nations in support of Arab initiatives, with the co-operation or at least the acquiescence of the Soviet Union.
Next—and this was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch —there must be a concerted effort to cut off the supply of arms to the Middle East. I believe that it is almost too much to hope for a complete worldwide embargo, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned Argentina and Germany. However, we should bear in mind that virtually all the weapons in the Middle East today were supplied by one or other of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Therefore, at least those five countries could agree to cut off those supplies. If they fail to do so it would be an outrage. I am not quite as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I am inclined to believe that the large sums of money paid to countries which were harmed by the war or which helped in the war will not be used directly for the purchase of arms. Nevertheless, the problem is urgent and important. Responsibility lies firmly with the five permanent members of the Security Council.

1477
The third certainty for western powers is that there will be no peace in the Middle East unless and until justice is done for the Palestinians. Many people have said that for many years. I am on record as saying it as long ago as 1948. Since then there have been five wars directly or indirectly concerned with the Palestinian problem. I say again, as I said in 1948, that if that problem is not solved there will be other wars. That must be of the utmost importance.
At first sight a peaceful settlement is further away than ever. Arafat's close association with Saddam Hussein has been a deadly blow to the PLO and to the Palestinian cause. It has gratuitously alienated from the Palestinians many of its strongest former allies and supporters in the Arab world and outside it. Simultaneously, Israel is enjoying greater prestige and influence and the Shamir government, apparently with solid public support, are maintaining their adamant refusal to trade land for peace.
The Foreign Secretary analyses that problem extremely well and has done so on more than one occasion in the past few weeks. For example, last week he sail:
"A settlement will have to balance guarantees of Israel's right to exist within secure borders with a withdrawal from the occupied territories. But the Palestinians must be brought in from the cold and means devised for the exercise of the right to self-determination".
He declared that it was imperative to search hard for progress over an issue which has been allowed to fester for too long. He continued:
"Israel cannot in the long run rest her security on the occupation of Arab lands".
The Foreign Secretary has made a lot of true and important statements of that kind recently and is to be congratulated on that. He is to be congratulated also on foreseeing, if not encouraging but perhaps encouraging, the agreement at Damascus of the eight Arab governments. However, his statements are silent on the point which matters; namely, how much pressure the Americans are prepared to exert on Israel to trade land for peace and to withdraw from the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees. That is the question which matters. We can all analyse the problem, but that is the question that needs to be answered.
Can President Bush somehow be encouraged to follow the example of President Eisenhower in 1956? He warned the Israelis that unless they withdrew from territory which they conquered at the time of Suez there would be a falling away of economic aid from the United States. That line was immediately successful. It is a question of whether President Bush can successfully withstand pressures from Washington which are stronger than ever and do something of the same kind in the interests of reaching a settlement.
Now, as then, there is no need to talk of sanctions against Israel. All that is required is a willingness to reduce the abnormally high level of United States aid to Israel. We must hope that the Security Council, under the lead of the United States, will now apply to the Israeli occupation something of the firmness of purpose which it applied with such success to the
1478
occupation of Kuwait. We must hope that the British Government, together with the European Community and acting as a member of it, will encourage the Security Council in those efforts. In spite of enormous uncertainties in the Middle East, I believe that those are lines of policy which Western governments can pursue with confidence, and I hope that this Government will do so.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Kennet for initiating the debate. I believe that it is worth while to look at the possibilities for a settlement in the Middle East in the immediate post-war period. If we had had to wait for five weeks, that may have been too long.
Secondly, I believe that we have had a useful debate. I have found some of the contributions to be quite noteworthy. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the workings of the UN and I shall return to that matter. I thought that the tour de raison of my noble friend Lord Kennet—if I do not mix my metaphors too much—was a very good preliminary canter round the course.
I agree with a great deal of the thrust of what my noble friend Lord Hatch said, although I did not find myself in such close agreement on some of the specifics. As regards the Chinese abstention, perhaps I may point out to him that the phrase "the concurrence of the five permanent members" has since 1946 been construed as the absence of a veto by any of the five permanent members. The argument that all five must vote in favour of a resolution to achieve that concurrence is no longer valid.
My noble friend mentioned the Chinese. When I was in New York they invented a fourth vote: one could vote in favour of a resolution, one could vote against it, one could abstain or one need not participate in a vote on a resolution, which is what they tended to do. As far as I know, it was never argued that non-participation was not concurrence in the passage of a resolution. Therefore, I fear that that point is bad.
I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend said about the possibility of arms coming back into the area. However, I should like to offer the House a reflection. If I were a Saudi Arabian and if Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq, I should wish to have the proper means for my own defence. The dilemma faced by countries is how one trades defence, which in this case means arms, for legitimate, rational and reasonable security. As yet the world has never resolved that dilemma. As regards the Middle East, it may well be that the only way to deal with the problem is by the somewhat crude and blunt instrument of saying that there must be a total embargo and nobody should sell arms to countries in the area. I shall return to that point later.
In considering the situation post-war in the Middle East, if I may offer the House one or two reflections before I get on to the specifics, the future well-being of the area in the end has to depend upon the people

1479
living in the area. It is a truism, but the funny thing about truisms is that they are very often true, and no external non-indigenous power will be able to safeguard peace and security in such an explosive part of the world.
The conclusion I draw is that I want British forces and all Western forces withdrawn from the Gulf as soon as is reasonably practicable. They went there to achieve a specific purpose; namely, the liberation of Kuwait. They have achieved it with brilliance and, that now having been achieved, their early departure is essential.
In particular we must avoid the temptation into which all governments, especially victorious governments, frequently fall of staying on too long because we believe that if we stay on a little longer the situation will get better. International experience seems to show that if you stay on the situation will probably get worse. The danger is that we then become the focus for the discontent which will assuredly arise.
One possible example is democratic rights in Kuwait itself. I suspect that the path to full democracy in the Gulf countries will be difficult and quite lengthy. If Western troops are still in position in Kuwait at a time when agitation for what we would consider normal democratic rights is taking place, and if those pressures are not met, we will get the blame and will be told that we are not using our power properly. We will be told that we are not doing enough; we will be told that we should be pressurising the existing government with greater vigour. So our purpose was a narrow one. Our purpose has been achieved and we should withdraw our soldiers from the Gulf as soon as we can.
Secondly, perhaps I may disabuse the House of what I detected in some speeches, that the United Nations can solve the problem. It cannot. The United Nations cannot actually solve anything. The United Nations can give countries and peoples of the area time within which they can solve it. One also has to say that, very frequently, time bought in an international crisis or a difficult situation is moving the problem in the direction of a solution. But all that the United Nations can do is to provide a framework within which rational and sensible discussions on both sides can take place and provide guidelines which will assist. But one cannot look to the Security Council for immediate solutions, particularly for long and deep-seated problems.
There is a tendency in international affairs for countries to try to solve a problem themselves; it then proves to be intractable, as it may well have proved to be over many years past; and when they have failed to solve it they throw it at the United Nations. Perhaps, understandably, the United Nations finds that considerable difficulties are attached to it and also fails to solve the problem, so the UN gets blamed for it. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to expect too much from that institution.
When considering what might be possible in the Gulf we have to recognise right at the outset the
1480
limited nature of what we can realistically expect to achieve, and we should not become too disappointed if it does not happen very quickly. I do not think we are on the verge of an era of peace, concord and tranquillity in the whole of the Middle East. I wish I could believe that, but past experience seems to lead us in the direction of believing that peace, concord and tranquillity in the whole of the Middle East will not come quickly or without great difficulty.
Thirdly, it is essential—and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said on this—to preserve the quite remarkable unanimity that has been achieved among the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council. If that were to break, the UN as an instrument of sensible progress would be shattered. But to preserve that unanimity requires effort and imagination. If we start playing power games again, trying to keep the Russians out because we think that it ought to be a Western preserve in the Middle East, or if the Russians attempted to preserve and re-arm Saddam Hussein, if we relapse into that sort of tit-for-tat game, the unanimity of the Permanent Members will go and we will find our task much more difficult.
Against that background, what can we do and what can we legitimately hope to achieve? There are some short and medium-term measures which are perhaps obvious and some longer-term ones which are more difficult. First, a peace-keeping force along the border between Iraq and Kuwait seems to be sensible and justified. Some countries, as we know, are already thinking in these terms but it will require a vote of the Security Council; it will require contingents from various countries and it will have to be under the control of the UN Secretariat.
Perhaps I may sound one word of warning. If there is to be a peace-keeping force along the border between Iraq and Kuwait, none of the Western belligerent countries can conceivably be a member of that force. It will have to be composed primarily of Arab countries, together with some third world countries, and if there are Western countries they will have to be neutrals.
Secondly, there is a need for a review of the 12 existing resolutions of the Security Council, particularly Resolution 661 on sanctions. In that context, the continuation of the arms embargo is sensible, at least as a short-term measure, and I do not see any reason at all why there should not be a convention, a declaration, an agreement or whatever diplomatic phraseology one likes to use, by which the Five Permanent Members themselves pledge collectively not to re-arm their old client countries in the Middle East. The queue of arms salesmen that now seems to be lining up in order to re-arm those countries that have so recently fought a war I find obscene.
Thirdly, the mess has to be cleared up, and again the United Nations and some of the agencies can play an important part in this. The use of the UN disaster relief organisation for immediate humanitarian assistance in the war areas is something which should not only be considered but should be actively promoted by the Government. In the longer term,

1481
there will be a major task of reconstruction. It may be that one can use agencies such as the UN development programme or other aid organisations for it. The only point I would make is that the Government should be generous when they consider what we can do in order to aid that task of reconstruction in the fighting areas. It is particularly important that we should be seen to be generous in the light of our frequent assurances throughout this conflict that we indeed have no quarrel with the people of Iraq itself, and that our quarrel has been primarily—indeed almost solely —with Saddam Hussein.
As a longer-term measure I suppose that the question of reparations will have to be considered. Prima facie it seems to me that this is a matter for direct negotiation between Iraq and Kuwait, but frozen Iraqi assets should perhaps remain frozen until at least some resolution of this issue has been achieved.
Those are all perhaps localised suggestions for the immediate problems of the Gulf area and the war area, but, if all we do is concentrate on that and ignore the other great issues of the region, then I fear that we shall not be dealing with the problem with the seriousness or comprehensiveness that it deserves.
I entirely agree with what has been said by noble Lords in this debate tonight that central to a settlement—if that is the right word—or a resolution, or even an amelioration of tension in the Middle East is some progress on the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Resolution 242 was passed in 1967. Resolution 338 was passed in 1973. Resolution 681 was passed as recently as 1990, and the statement by the president of the Security Council then concerning an international conference is an extraordinarily important statement.
Such a conference has to take place. The only possible forum within which this discussion can acceptably take place —acceptably to the Arab countries—will be one which is under the aegis of the United Nations. It is perfectly true that the Israelis will not like it. One can understand that. They will be put under intense pressure if they go to a peace conference. But whatever pressure they will be put under if they go to a peace conference, I would agree with my noble friend Lord Mayhew that pressure should be put on them now to get them to that peace conference where these issues can be seriously addressed.
It seems that Lebanon is firmly on the back burner. We should not ignore it. It is a problem of a small, rather attractive country before its present difficulties, which has been torn by religious and political divides inside and exacerbated by intervention from without. I hope that in looking at the Middle East as a whole we shall not forget the problem of the Lebanon, nor indeed that of the Kurds.
The international agenda is therefore full. I am quite convinced that in the present climate of international relations these matters have to be addressed in an international context. A reversion to bilateral efforts to settle them will, I think, be no more successful in the future than such efforts have proved in the past.
1482
There is, therefore, I believe a genuine and deep change taking place in the world in the way in which the United Nations is perceived and is now used. It would be foolhardy in the extreme not to continue along what has so far proved to be such a fruitful course. I see, if not resolution, at least improvement in some of the problems I have been talking about tonight, firmly set in the context of action by, and within, the United Nations.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have listened with interest to noble Lords' speeches this evening. Valuable points have been made and I will study Hansard carefully. There is of course no more important subject in the world today—today and tomorrow. Having won the war we must now seek to win the peace. The best memorial we can build to those who died tragically as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait is a just, lasting and secure peace in the region.
Before addressing the noble Lord's Question directly, I should like briefly to review the remarkable achievements of the last seven months. On 2nd August last year Iraq invaded its smaller and weaker neighbour. The invasion was in direct defiance of all Iraq's international obligations both as a member of the United Nations and of the Arab League. The response was unprecedented. The United Nations Security Council adopted no less than twelve resolutions, each passed either unanimously or by an overwhelming majority. Some 30 countries dispatched forces to the Gulf, first to defend the other Gulf states from further Iraqi aggression and then to enforce the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and bring an end to Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw despite the peaceful pressures brought to bear on him by the whole international community. Finally, and reluctantly, the coalition against him was obliged to eject him by force, acting under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to the marvellous professionalism, courage and dedication of our armed forces. We can be justly proud of their remarkable performance in securing the defeat of a ruthless aggressor.
The aims of the coalition were laid down by the United Nations in successive resolutions: first, to secure Iraq's full and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait; secondly, to restore Kuwait's legitimate government; and thirdly, to restore international peace and security in the area. The first two of those objectives have been achieved. Some of the foundations have already been laid for the third objective. Iraq's offensive conventional capability has been largely destroyed. Her nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic production capabilities have at least suffered very serious setbacks.
An enormous task lies ahead. There is a good basis on which to build—the steadfast unity of purpose shown by the international community over the past seven months. The first priority in building a fair and

1483
durable peace must be to ensure that Iraq complies with the requirements set out for a formal and permanent cease-fire. Then we must turn to devising a lasting peace.
It would be presumptuous to come before the House today with a blueprint for the region. It is not possible to define rigidly now the terms of a settlement. But what we can do is to establish the principles on which we would wish to build. Those principles should include, first, a recognition that we cannot impose structures or models from elsewhere on the region—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Our role will be rather to assist and reinforce the process that must be initiated by the regional states themselves. Their views must be paramount. Secondly, there must be acceptance that, to have the best chance of real progress, those issues need to be discussed widely. Many other countries will have a useful contribution to make in the search for peace. Thirdly, there must be a willingness to explore with an open mind all the possibilities. We should not approach the search for peace with preconceived notions as to the outcome. Fourthly, we need to promote practical co-operation not only within the region but also more widely by, for example, building upon the links which already exist between the European Community and the region.
We need also to be clear what we do not seek. We do not seek the dismemberment of Iraq. We do not seek a vendetta against the Iraqi people, with whom we had no quarrel. We sought to minimise civilian casualties and to avoid damage to sites of religious or cultural significance. We have made clear throughout that our argument is with Iraq's leadership. It is not for us to prescribe who should govern Iraq. But Iraq clearly needs a leadership which can be trusted to respect her commitments as a member of the United Nations and the Arab League.
We must seek wider agreement on the aims and objectives. And we must rapidly address a number of vital tasks. The first will be the reconstruction and security of Kuwait. The Kuwaiti people have suffered terribly under Iraq's brutal occupation and their country has been mercilessly looted. Their determination now to rebuild their country is clear. I believe that Britain will have a significant part to play in that reconstruction. The countries of the Gulf are already looking at what new structures will need to be put in place to enhance their security. We and their other friends stand ready, if asked, to do what we can to help. But any Western help must be a contribution to, rather than a cornerstone of, a coherent security structure.
A second task is to address wider Middle Eastern issues, and particularly the long-standing problem of the Palestinians. I should emphasise that progress on this is not a precondition for progress towards peace and security in the Gulf, any more than it was when Saddam Hussein tried to introduce misleading linkages.
The Gulf conflict has not made a settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute any easier. Israel was subject to disgraceful provocations by Iraq. Her citizens were
1484
killed and injured, but she reacted with commendable restraint. For its part, the PLO leadership has damaged its credibility by supporting Iraqi aggression and showing no concern for the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people. On the practical level, however, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have suffered from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by seeing their income and livelihood destroyed. We need to return to the Arab/Israel question with renewed urgency and vigour. It remains a chronic source of instability in the region. The basis for a settlement is set out in UN Resolutions 242 and 338. The principle is "land for peace". Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 should be balanced by a guarantee of Israel's right to exist.
We have long supported the Palestinians' right to self-determination. That right and Israel's right to secure borders must be respected in a comprehensive negotiated settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute. We seek to persuade Israel that security can be achieved only through peace with her Arab neighbours. That will not be possible without progress on the Palestinian problem.
We must seek to minimise the dangers posed by the stockpiling of arms in the region. Countries have a legitimate right to self-defence but it is important to exercise restraint in the supply of armaments. In particular we must prevent the sale of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or of essential components. Restraints on Iraq's present and future capability are essential. But wider restraints will need to be considered. These restraints will have to be effectively and rigorously policed. However, the fundamental political reasons which lie behind the large-scale possession of armaments need to be resolved, as I have already outlined above, if we are to maximise the chances of real arms reductions.
Some have suggested that an international conference is necessary for the resolution of these various issues. We have long supported the idea of an international conference on the Arab/Israel problem, and that support continues. But we must not lose sight of the wood for the trees. We must not become obsessed with means and mechanics. There is no point, for example, in an all-embracing conference if the will to reach settlements is absent. Any such conference would need careful preparation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talked about Western arms supplies to Iraq. Ninety per cent. of Iraq's arms were from Soviet sources. It is not we who armed Iraq as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said. It is a folk myth to suggest that. We are traditionally very careful about who we sell armaments to. We have not sold arms to Iraq for very many years. We have very strict controls. We stopped sales to Iraq because we did not think that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were suitable to receive arms exports. We shall certainly encourage other countries throughout the world to be more discriminating about those to whom they sell arms.
I entirely agree with the positive contribution from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy concerning the United Nations Charter. We must build on it as it is and not try to rewrite it. My noble friend raised the

1485
question of war crimes. We have made it clear that anyone who breaks the provisions of the Geneva Convention may be held liable, and that remains the case. That will not be a decision for the United Kingdom alone. Machinery already exists under the Geneva Convention 1967 for prosecuting grave breaches. The Kuwaiti Government intends to establish a commission to catalogue war crimes, which we welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to the batbarous disregard for civilian life in the conduct of the war. I do not think there has been any war this century in which there have been greater attempts to avoid civilian deaths. Allied aircraft returned with full bomb racks when the risk to civilians was unacceptable. Many identified military targets were not attacked at all because of the risk to civilians. The noble Lord asked if the bombing of civilians was not contrary to the Geneva Convention. The answer to that is no. We attacked targets accepted as legitimate in international law. Iraq's stationing of military targets in civilian areas was contrary to the rules of war.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He will recall that not very long ago I asked him if it was Her Majesty's Government's policy that Iraqi forces that were withdrawing would not be attacked. I was assured that that was the policy of the Government and the allies. I was assured that there would be no attacks on Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait or the scene of battle. In my speech I was making the point that I was concerned not just with civilians, but above all with the attacks being made on Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait. That has been described in disgusting language in a prominent newspaper of this country as a "turkey shoot".
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord in his speech to be making references to civilian casualties. That was the point I was trying to answer. He also referred to the use of Chapter VII, which he
1486
said had been selective. In our view it was not a selective use of it. The aggression was the first serious act of war that had occurred since the end of the cold war which permitted the United Nations to act as it should. It was the first attempt since 1945 to annexe a sovereign, independent state.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned the meeting of the Gulf Co-operation Council with Egypt and Syria in Damascus today. We welcome their evident determination to put new security structures in place. I look forward to studying in detail the text of today's declaration. The noble Lord also referred to the role of the Soviet Union. There is no intention of excluding from the region the Soviet Union by Western hegemony or, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, put it, by creating a Western preserve. That is why we seek an Arab solution.
I agree that restraint by the permanent five on the supply of arms must be pursued urgently but without prejudice to the country's legitimate rights of self defence. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, speaks with unrivalled authority in this House on the subject of the United Nations. I thought that his warning that we should not expect the United Nations to do everything was sound and sensible advice. We do not exclude an eventual decision by the Security Council to deploy United Nations observers or peace keeping forces to the region if this is what Kuwait and the other regional states wish. But it may conclude that some other format is more appropriate to its needs; for example, a force drawn from Arab members of the coalition.
Peace and security in the Middle East is of vital interest to us all. Now that the fighting is thankfully over we must use the peace well. Britain as a permanent member of the Security Council, as one of the Twelve, as a close ally of the United States, as a major contributor to the Gulf effort and as a traditional friend of many Arab states, will do all it can to make sense of that peace.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past nine o'clock.