Lords Sitting of 8 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Broadleaved Woodlands: Management
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will supplement their policy of encouraging the planting of more broadleaved trees with measures to ensure proper management of such planting and hence the market value of the mature product.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in his statement in another place on 23rd July 1990, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced that woodland management grants are to be introduced from 1st April 1992 under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme. The new grants will encourage the proper management of broadleaved woodlands, which will have the effect of increasing the value of the timber eventually produced.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In view of the enormous amount of neglected hardwoods in the country, is he confident that these grants will adequately encourage proper management and vermin control throughout the whole period of the growing of the hardwoods?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government recognise that neglected woodlands require sustained and systematic management. The management grants are intended to encourage private owners to bring neglected woodlands into a healthy and productive state. The management grants will be available at £10 per hectare per annum for conifers and £25 per hectare per annum for broadleaves under the standard grant and £35 per hectare per annum for all species under the special management grant. In addition there is a supplementary grant of £5 to £10 per hectare per annum for woodlands of less than 10 hectares, which will cover most neglected woodlands. This means that a total of up to £45 per hectare per annum could be available for the management of small neglected woodlands.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that lack of an adequate management grant was largely responsible for new planting falling short—by around 20,000 hectares—of the Government's target last year?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we cannot take a short-term view of forestry. Over the past 10 years we have seen a quarter of a million hectares of new planting in Great Britain. In relation to our land area, we have probably done more than almost any other country in the world to build up our
1082
forestry. It is certainly true that there has been a recent drop in planting; but this should not cause us to be pessimistic about future prospects for forestry. The pattern of planting is changing. There is more planting on better quality land and less in the hills. There are more community forests and there is more planting by farmers. We must allow time for planting to move strongly in these new directions.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the management of trees after planting is much more important than the planting? We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for raising the matter. The Forestry Commission has produced two very good advisory pamphlets. I should like to think that the Government will do something to make public the importance of the management of trees. If they do not, all we shall get in 120 years' time is firewood instead of first-class wood for use.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government, in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, are doing everything that is possible. Neglected woodlands require sustained and systematic management. The management grants will contribute to that end. I hope that many neglected woodlands will be put back into good heart.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would not the greater use of our native hardwoods reduce the demand for imported tropical hardwoods, the cutting down of which so badly affects the environment?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. There was an important benefit to the balance of payments of some £700 million in 1989. The timber processing industry employs around 10,000 people. That figure will rise by perhaps 50 per cent. in 10 years and will double in the early years of the next century.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, am I right to deduce from the noble Earl's answers that at long last we are to get away from the Forestry Commission's former policy of single species even age planting followed by clear felling which did so much environmental damage in so many upland parts of Britain?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: Yes, my Lords, so far as I understand it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be glad that the Minister has indicated a change of thinking by the part of the Government in regard to encouraging broadleaves. It has been stated that our deficit in hardwoods is very high—£2.2 billion last year. How much Forestry Commission land has been sold to date? Can he say what proportion of that land will be given over to hardwoods rather than to the production of wood for immediate consumption?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have the figures that the noble Lord asks for; I shall write to him.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cricket bat willow is classed as a

1083
hardwood? Is it not correct then that it should attract some form of grant? At the moment, that species does not.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have the answer to my noble friend's question. I shall certainly write to him. I assume that it would come under the woodland management grant scheme.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that non-British trees such as sycamore and beech will qualify for the grant at the broadleaved rate?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I understand it, sycamore and beech will come under the scheme, but, as I said in my previous reply to my noble friend Lord Radnor, I shall confirm that in writing to my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, who is responsible for the management of the woodlands that are being planted, I am glad to say, along so many motorways? Is it the Department of Transport? If so, will it take advice as to how the woodlands should be managed? The number of trees involved is important in some areas.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to community forests.
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Earl. I am talking about planting along the verges of motorways—not the adjoining land—which is now considerable.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I understand it, that planting does not come under the Forestry Commission. Again, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Lord Burton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is almost no market for hardwoods in Scotland, especially the north of Scotland, and that therefore the management grant will be even more important in the north if the Government want to encourage the growing of hardwoods?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I can take up the question asked by my noble friend Lady Nicol. She did not claim that the trees planted along the motorways were under the control of the Forestry Commission. She asked whether they were under the control of the Department of Transport and, if so, who was responsible for their management, and whether the Department of Transport, if it were the relevant authority, would take advice. Will the Minister answer the question?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall be completely honest. I do not know the answer
1084
to that question. I suspect that the trees do come under the Department of Transport, but I shall have to write on the matter.

Northern Ireland: Parcel Deliveries to Troops
2.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of arrangements made for troops in the Gulf, they will introduce an airmail parcel service for troops in Northern Ireland delivered at surface mail rates.
Lord Reay: My Lords, parcel deliveries for troops serving in Northern Ireland employ the normal civilian Royal Mail Parcelforce service. That provides a single service within the United Kingdom, including movement to and from Northern Ireland by sea container. There are no plans to introduce special delivery arrangements for servicemen in Northern Ireland.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear but disappointing Answer. Is he aware that, according to the British Forces Post Office, it often takes 14 days for parcels to be delivered to it? It then has to deliver them to the troops in Northern Ireland. Thus the delivery time can often be as much as 21 days. Does he agree that the soldiers in Northern Ireland have an isolated, dangerous and often demoralising task to perform and that we should provide them with every support possible? Does he also agree that the special efforts made in the more dramatic and visible circumstances of the Gulf should be made for the young soldiers serving in Northern Ireland?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the importance of maintaining an efficient postal system. Every effort is made to ensure that mail is delivered as quickly as possible. On average, parcels take some seven to ten days to be delivered to Northern Ireland, because all forces mail to a BFPO address is passed by the Royal Mail through the MoD postal depot in London. There the mail is sorted to every BFPO location around the world, including Northern Ireland. It is then included with the civil post parcel dispatches to Northern Ireland arranged by the Royal Mail Parcel Post. Once it arrives in Northern Ireland, it then re-enters the BFPO delivery system for the individual. We recognise that that is a roundabout route which causes delay, but we believe that it is essential for the additional security it achieves for our forces.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept that the Government are concerned, but why cannot something be done about the delay if it is 21 days? That seems unreasonable.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, the average is some seven to ten days because of the need for security and to give protection to our forces.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what would be the cost of a BFPO economy parcel service to Northern Ireland along the lines of the one that operated in the Gulf? What would be the improvement in speed given the necessary security requirements?
Lord Reay: My Lords, parcels were delivered to our forces in the Gulf by air during the conflict because the RAF was operating daily flights and accepting parcels on a fill-up basis; that is to say, when and to the extent that space permitted. There are no regular military flights to Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom which could transport parcels.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, do the Government envisage a civil arrangement given the security problems? What would be the cost?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no figures to show what would be the cost of that service. The volume, which is some 60,000 kg a year, has not in the past been found sufficient to warrant setting up a special parcel delivery service.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best way to improve a service is to sack the person responsible for its unsatisfactory condition?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Earl has in mind. I have twice explained why the service unfortunately takes as long as it does.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how long it takes to carry out the security measures on this small amount of mail? It seems extraordinary that it should take on average from seven to ten days.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is because the mail has first to be transported to the MoD postal depot in this country. Then it has to join the civil parcel postal service to Northern Ireland and re-enter the military system in order to be delivered at the other end. That is why the delay occurs.
Lord On-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend explain in a little more detail how civilian baggage—not hand baggage but heavy baggage—can be examined quite quickly for all civilians travelling in and out of Northern Ireland, yet, when it concerns soldiers, the mail takes an extra seven days?
Lord Reay: Civilian parcels sent on the ordinary service do not have to enter the military system at either end. That is the reason for the difference in the time talc en. I have no further details to give, but I shall be happy to look into the matter if that is the wish of noble Lords.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, if the Government are unwilling to grapple with the problem, will they consider introducing, as they did for the Gulf, a special Christmas parcel service? Then at least at Christmas-time the soldiers serving in Northern Ireland will be able to receive their presents on time
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to pass on that suggestion to my right honourable friend.

The Recession: IMF Warnings
2.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they plan to respond to the IMF's warnings about the depth of the recession.
The Minster of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government will continue to pursue policies designed to establish the basis for a resumption of non-inflationary growth. Inflation is now falling and there are encouraging signs that activity will recover from around the middle of the year, as forecast in the Budget.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the research of the IMF seems to indicate that Britain has the lowest output of the seven leading nations? Because of that, unemployment is likely to increase according to the IMF. Therefore we could be in a serious situation. Ought not the Government to study the IMF report? Contributions to it were made by leading groups of economists in the country. Perhaps the Government should form a committee to examine how we are to get out of this extremely difficult situation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the figure quoted by the IMF is the same as that quoted in the Budget by the Government.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how we shall recognise when we have turned the corner to which the Chancellor referred?
Lord Hesketh: When GDP rises, my Lords.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether the Government have any views on the trend of inflation next year? They should bear in mind that in yesterday's press widely reported views of a number of experts were that inflation may start rising again next year after having fallen this year.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the Government and the whole country are more interested in anticipating falls than considering that there may be rises.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister explain what "non-inflationary growth" means?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, non-inflationary growth is the growth achieved without an excessive increase in inflation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that he is being unduly optimistic and perhaps even complacent? Did he read the report yesterday or did he receive the news in his post yesterday from building employers that the building trade was going through not a recession but a slump? It was stated that there would be a 100,000 fewer jobs in the industry by the end of the year. Did he hear the news today that Rolls-Royce is to lay off

1087
8,000 people rather than 4,000? Did he read the news over the weekend that 40,000 small businesses will collapse this year? Unemployment will be 2½million by the end of this year and 3 million by the end of next year. Under those circumstances, does not the noble Lord think that the Government are being complacent and therefore not taking the right action to get out of the recession?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's remarks I am amazed that I am even considering staying in the country. I draw his attention to the surveys which he did not mention: the ABCC survey, the CBI publication on quarterly trends, the IOD survey of only yesterday and the 12 per cent. increase in the first quarter in private housing orders. Also he did not mention that after the fall in GDP, real GDP growth will be 22 per cent. higher than it was a decade ago. Neither did he mention that the real net income of a married man with two children is 37 per cent. higher than it was.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that reply was enormously interesting although I have no idea what connection it had with the question. But that is by the way. I congratulate the noble Lord. His answer to my noble friend Lady Phillips on what was non-inflationary growth, bearing in mind that it is the university examination season, would get him at least an A-minus. However, it is customary to write more than one sentence.
Were the newspapers right in reporting the IMF statement that the way to deal with our recession and the unemployment problem is to cut unemployment benefit? Did the noble Lord read that as I did? Have the Government any view as to whether the way out of the problem is to cut unemployment benefit? For example, is it the Government's view that the unemployed are responsible for their own unemployment?
Lord Hesketh: My. Lords, the only Government that I am aware of in this country who have taken directions from the IMF are the Government who preceded this one.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am right, then, that this Government have no intention of following the advice of the IMF on this matter. I should like the noble Lord to confirm that that is the case. I shall put it differently. Am I right in assuming that the Government will not follow the advice of the IMF on this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to repeat my previous answer. The only Government of whom I am aware who have taken direction from the IMF are the preceding Labour Government.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, there must be a yes or no from the Government to the question, will they accept the IMF advice. It is as simple as that.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have given the answer twice. I believe that it was a perfectly adequate answer which reports the facts.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to take the matter seriously? What the IMF said has been supported by the Institute of Directors. Is it to be dismissed? The CBI and Mr. John Banham recently described the situation in this country of our economy going from bad to worse. The chambers of commerce expressed their alarm at the plunge in exports and the engineering employers say that the decline will continue for some time and as a consequence there will be considerable unemployment. The IMF, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, all these people have considerable knowledge. Could the Government at least consult them and be prepared to accept that there is a dangerous situation for our nation? We ought to get together to see whether we can ward off the disaster into which this Tory Government are leading us.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is being slightly selective. I draw his attention to the survey by the chambers of commerce of 24th April, the CBI information on quarterly trends of 30th April and the remarks of the Institute of Directors yesterday. They all said something rather different from what he suggested.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend think that questions in your Lordships' House are becoming rather long-winded?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it would be considered most inappropriate for a single Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and give an answer to that question.

South Africa: Sanctions
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their present policy towards sanctions against South Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, our policy has not altered since my noble friend Lord Reay answered the Unstarred Question in the noble Lord's name on this subject on 18th February this year. The arms embargo and associated military sanctions should remain in force until South Africa adopts a democratic and non-racial constitution. All other sanctions should be lifted as soon as possible to encourage further reforms by President de Klerk and to help restore growth to the South African economy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the British Government have been urging the governments of the EC to remove the remaining sanctions imposed on South Africa? Is the Minister aware that just this morning I was informed from Cape Town that 260 political prisoners are on hunger strike because the South African Government have failed to carry out their promise in the Pretoria Minute of last year to release all political prisoners by

1089
30th April? In those circumstances do the Government still consider that this is the right time to remove more economic sanctions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted that action was taken by the European Community which decided in principle to lift the bans on the import of iron, steel and gold coins on 15th April. Over 900 political prisoners have been released in the past 12 months and more than 1,000 political exiles have returned home. As regards the noble Lord's final point, he is out of touch with everybody. Mr. Mandela said on 31st January that the process of political transformation would not inspire hope in black people unless something was done to improve their quality of life. The removal of sanctions would improve their quality of life.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the escalating violence in South Africa is ominous and depressing because it prejudices the possibility of a settlement which would lead immediately to the lifting of sanctions? In view of the recent visits to this country of Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk when they discussed the position with Ministers, will the noble Earl say what views the Government conveyed to them and what steps the Government believe should be taken in order to bring to an end this unhappy violence, which is causing concern not only in this country but throughout the world?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition refers to the important matter of violence. We deplore violence from whatever source it may come. We understand that over 600 people have died this year in the violence. That represents a tragic and unnecessary loss of human potential. I understand that the number of deaths is about the same as the figure for the same period last year. However, the anxiety associated with the violence is undoubtedly growing among a number of people in South Africa. That is why we continue to encourage negotiation. We were pleased that President de Klerk and Dr. Buthelezi met yesterday. We look forward to hearing the results of the discussions that are to take place this afternoon between President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. We note that the joint statement drawn up between President de Klerk and Dr. Buthelezi was a constructive one and that Dr. Buthelezi will be attending the conference called by President de Klerk on 24th and 25th May to discuss the violence.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the discussions which British officials have had with interested parties in South Africa, will my noble friend say why the British have consistently refused to include in discussions Mr. Mangope of Bophuthatswana, a totally independent, multiracial and democratic state? Three elections took place in that state in 1977. Are the British taking this stance because they recognise that country to be independent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the answer to my noble friend's question. It is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government acknowledge the start that has been made to dismantling the evil of apartheid by keeping in close touch with Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandela and giving both all the encouragement and help they can?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to respond to the noble Lord with a complete assurance that we are in contact with all the leaders in South Africa and that we are encouraging further discussion to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is estimated that more than 40 per cent. of the economically active blacks of South Africa are currently unemployed and that over 1,000 job seekers come on to the market every day? Surely economic growth is vital for South Africa today. Is it not the case that on his recent visit President de Klerk agreed that in three years' time there will be a black government in South Africa? Surely Her Majesty's Government should be congratulated on their brave moves in easing sanctions. Can the Minister give any indication of the easing of human sanctions, particularly as regards the Gleneagles Agreement, so enabling sporting relations with other countries to be normalised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to stress the necessity for removing economic sanctions: it is only through that means that one will be able to improve the South African economy. That will be to the benefit of everyone in South Africa. As regards sporting sanctions, we welcome the announcement made on 21st April regarding the integration of the cricket bodies in South Africa. We look forward to hearing further announcements regarding the integration of other sporting bodies, and we hope for an announcement that would lead to South Africa's full participation in world sport.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the number of political prisoners who have been released. Can he give the House any idea of the number of political prisoners who are still detained?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness with that information.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, is there any evidence that the ANC is re-arming?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. We have no evidence to that effect. If we had such evidence, we would deplore it as it would run counter to the ANC's undertaking as part of the Pretoria Minute of 6th August that it has suspended its armed struggle.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl is being either naive or misleading the House when he talks about the release of political prisoners. Is he not

1091
aware that the Pretoria Minute states specifically that all political prisoners will be released by 30th April? That is not the situation, and some of those prisoners are now on hunger strike. Mr. Mandela called specifically for the maintenance of sanctions—he has always done so—until there had been irreversible progress towards achieving a democratic society in South Africa. How can there be irreversible progress towards a democratic South Africa when only the whites have the vote, when the whole executive and parliamentary system is in the hands of the whites and when the land division remains at 87 per cent. for the one-fifth of the population that is composed of white people, while 13 per cent. is allocated for the three-quarters—

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I must interrupt the noble Lord as Question Time has lasted for more than 30 minutes. The noble Lord should have made his final question a good deal shorter.
After the short debate on improving relations with other member states of the European Community and before the short debate on engineering, my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on relief to cyclone victims in Bangladesh.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Howie of Troon. In the case of the first debate the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion. In the case of the second debate, apart from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the speech of the Minister who is to reply, speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I hope I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question. Is it not the case that 30 minutes for Question Time is a recommendation of the Procedure Committee and not a hard and fast rule? Is it really in the spirit of this House to interrupt a speaker when the 30 minutes is up and when the question he is asking is obviously going to be the final question? I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to express his views on whether this practice is to be the daily procedure of this House, or whether we shall continue to maintain a certain degree of give-and-take as we have done in the past.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I certainly do not wish to be in any way discourteous to
1092
the noble Lord. However, if the noble Lord had been a little quicker in putting his question it would have been possible for my noble friend to reply. It would also have been possible for the noble Lord who wished to speak from the Opposition Benches to put his question and for my noble friend to reply to it. However, knowing full well the wish of this House to adhere to the 30-minute maximum for Question Time, if inordinately long questions take us over the 30 minutes it is inevitable that we have to draw matters to a close.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not a specific answer to my question. Perhaps I may press the noble Lord a stage further. I have asked him whether he is going to make it a hard and fast rule that as soon as 30 minutes have passed he will close down questions irrespective of whether they have been answered.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the decision of this House was that it was undesirable that Question Time should exceed half an hour. The time for Question Time was extended to half an hour because it was felt on all sides of the House that if we were more generous and allowed half an hour rather than 20 minutes there was no reason whatever why every single noble Lord should not have an opportunity to speak provided he put his question briefly.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when the 20-minute rule was in operation it was very frequently waived, allowing up to half an hour. That was done at the discretion of the Leader of the House. I am asking whether that does not still apply now that Question Time has been extended to 30 minutes.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it does not apply. One of the reasons for extending the time to 30 minutes was that the rule which laid down that it was desirable that Questions should last for only 20 minutes was more often honoured in the breach than in the observance. It was therefore thought far more sensible to extend the time to 30 minutes in the belief that every noble Lord would co-operate and we would adhere to the 30 minutes.

Adelphi Estate Bill
3.11 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Thursday 9th May.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EC: Relations between Member States
3.12 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the case for improving relations with other member states of the European Community, particularly Germany; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Motion primarily to draw attention to the need to improve our relations with Germany. The time could hardly be more propitious because the Prime Minister, greatly to his credit, has changed the climate by establishing a warm relationship with the German Chancellor.
It is very much in our interests to improve relations. Germany is now our biggest export market. In 1990 Germany overtook the United States as the best outlet for British goods. The situation in East Germany gives our exporters a unique opportunity. Our banks ought to give British industrialists favourable credit terms to enable them to exploit that opportunity. If we can get in on the ground floor there it will be to our advantage in the next century. Moreover, the banks are less likely to acquire bad debts than they are in South America or in third world countries. The Wirtschaftswunder east of the Elbe may prove to be less spectacular than that in West Germany in the 1950s, but let no one doubt that it will come.
Germany is our most important partner in defence. The 70,000 troops we deployed in Germany and in Berlin nay now be being reduced by half but troops are still likely to be deployed west of the Rhine. For too long this country has continued to believe that our role is to police the world—in Korea, east of Suez, in Belize and now in the Gulf. We spend billions updating weapons that grow ever more expensive and trillions on updating a useless nuclear deterrent—useless because under no circumstances that one can possibly foresee would it ever be used. We need Germany to help us turn NATO into an organisation which shares that defence burden. No other nation in the European Community would be willing to help us in that way.
Germany is the key to the development of the Community. Germany is beginning to see that the development of the EC is much more complicated than Monsieur Delors imagines. The mass unemployment and collapse of the East German economy after the establishment of the deutschmark on a parity with the East German mark has made the German Government, as well as the Bundesbank, think again about the speed at which the European Community can move towards a common currency. Surely the Prime Minister was right to say that whether or not it is sensible to use the same money we can surely all agree on the need for sound money. We do not want to crow over Germany's difficulties. On the contrary, we need to sit down with the Germans and examine the lessons to be learnt in establishing common economic institutions, the lessons which Germany is now learning in its relations with what used to be East Germany.
There is something else that we can learn from Germany. Germany has the best industrial relations in Europe; we have the worst. That problem will not go away. Lord Bullock's report could not have appeared at a worse time—the late 1970s—when militant and irresponsible trade unionism was rampant. Its recommendations could not have been implemented then. But the German model of one industry, one union, 17 unions in all, with a collective bargaining system developed and set in law, which makes prolonged disharmony illegal, mocks our crude confrontational policies. No doubt such corporatist solutions are out of date in the view of the Government today, but is it inconceivable that the leaders of the biggest trade unions in this country might confer with their colleagues in Germany and learn how the German system works?
If we move closer to Germany it will be important not to try to drive a wedge between Germany and France. We must recognise that owing to our contempt for the Continent for 25 years after the war Germany will for many years regard France as her premier ally. She will do so because the French, recognising their own self-interest, forged a genuine economic alliance with Germany. However, Germany is a federal republic and we may therefore be able to persuade the Germans that too tightly-knit a bureaucracy in Brussels is to nobody's advantage. Some latitude must be allowed for regional and national differences as there is in the Bundesrepublik. Our aim should be to convert the Franco-German tandem into a three-horse troika as the driving force in the Community.
There is another reason why relations with Germany need to be closer. We are closer to America than any of our European colleagues, so much so that they have often pictured Britain as outside the Community and looking in. Mrs. Thatcher when she was Prime Minister on several occasions spoke for the Community, for example over Star Wars. Her close rapport with President Reagan won some concessions to the Community view. However, she gave the impression of speaking on her own, whereas the present Prime Minister has won golden opinions in the Community by consulting with his European colleagues first. He did so in creating the safe havens for the Kurds. He has done so again in bringing Community pressure to bear on the United Nations to police northern Iraq.
Instead of British initiatives being regarded with suspicion, they are now regarded as European initiatives. We saw that the other day when the Community declined to follow the lead of the President of the United States in lowering interest rates. I do not think that anyone should doubt the need for Britain! and the Community to keep the Atlantic alliance in being, and we are best placed to attack the most virulent forms of anti-Americanism on the Continent and to proclaim the benefits of NATO. But, by working in concert with his colleagues, the Prime Minister can eradicate the image of Britain acting on its own outside the Community, always at odds with our partners.
What is it that impedes better relations? There are many in my generation, and perhaps especially in this House, who find great difficulty in believing that Germany has changed its character. They are still haunted by the spectre of the power that provoked five wars between 1864 and 1939. None of us can forget the Holocaust of 45 years ago and some people still want to punish Germany for it. We all of us, I hope, recall how well-meaning people between the wars, indignant at the folly of the Versailles settlement, wanted to revise it; how that policy of appeasement after Hitler took power was disastrously continued; and how Britain undermined French foreign policy and rotted the French will to resist. Those are the memories that very understandably alarm people. They certainly alarmed Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Ridley. Many people are determined, as they would say, not to be fooled again.
But in diplomacy, as in war, it never pays to fight the same battle over again. It is inconceivable that Germany or any other European power will start a war in Europe again. Of course there are isolated Germans who may talk of revising the Polish frontier or who smash Jewish gravestones, but I cannot think of a single reputable observer who does not agree that the sense of shame about the Holocaust and about the calamity of the Second World War permeates German society.
In fact, the Germans' distrust of themselves is so marked that Germany began by being almost neutral in the Gulf war. The leader of the Social Democrat Party said, "Don't those foreigners understand that you can't offer brandy chocolates to a former alcoholic who is on the waggon?" But very soon other voices began to be heard in Germany. The editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Herr Joachim Fest, criticised his countrymen for sitting in moral judgment upon the Western countries when those countries had guaranteed Germany the benefits of international order. The German Chancellor rallied his nation and Germany made a large monetary contribution to the allied forces, of which we received no less than £277 million.
Japan, notably, gave less. Germany made that contribution at a time when it was paying large sums of money to the Soviet Union to enable the Soviet Union to withdraw and rehouse its large army in East Germany. At the same time, Germany was giving large credits to East European countries to enable them to rebuild their shattered economies—all of that while Germany itself is faced with the desperately serious problem of mass unemployment and a derelict country in East Germany.
Nor is Germany backward in honouring obligations to Israel and in the third world. Everyone knows of the good work done by the young people of this country in VSO, but how many people know of the voluntary service that young Germans do in Africa, particularly in the leper colonies? No country in Europe, ourselves included, is in better standing with the international community.
What can we do to convince Germany of our good intentions? Let me suggest one move, though I suspect
1096
that it may find no warm welcome in the Foreign Office. Sooner or later the seats on the Security Council in the United Nations will come under scrutiny and Germany will have a prior claim among European countries to be given a seat. I can well imagine the Foreign Office's response: "Any change is quite impossible. We certainly could not cede our seat and, if Germany is admitted to the Security Council, why not Japan, Nigeria, Brazil, India and countless others who have good claims?".
Such a response would be negative and unimaginative. Not everyone may warm to Herr Genscher's manner, but should we not consider his overtures more carefully than we have at present? Those overtures suggest that we should consult our EC colleagues on all major issues in the Security Council, or, if that is too great a burden, we should consult at least Germany, so that we can reach agreement on any matter that comes to the Security Council. Britain would then speak for Germany and the other EC countries as well as herself; better still, if the seat which is now ours could rotate on a three-year cycle between the two countries. It is by a gesture such as that, which costs us virtually nothing and would earn us an enormous dividend, that we could improve relations with Germany.
In 1945 I became head of the German section of the political division in the Control Commission. I tried to supervise and encourage the rebirth of political parties. It was then that I met Dr. Adenauer and Herr Schumacher. I well remember the situation that arose when the British military government sacked Adenauer as the mayor of Cologne and put him under house arrest. I was sent to release him and to explain to him a little later that the ban had been lifted and that we wished him well. I am not at all sure that I convinced him, but there was no doubt in my mind what he was and where his heart lay.
I remember Adenauer asking me what I thought was the greatest mistake that this country had ever made in its relations with Germany. I hesitated and suggested that perhaps, discretion being the better part of valour, he might answer that question himself. "I shall tell you", he said. "It was in 1814 at the Congress of Vienna when you so foolishly put Prussia on the Rhine to protect you against future French aggression". That was characteristic of the man who was not merely a German but a European and always had the interests of Europe as a whole at heart, even though he was perhaps not much of a friend to this country. He was a scion of the great humanistic culture of the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement and his heart lay not just in Germany but in Europe.
That was characteristic of the new Germany that came to birth, but it is not from sentimental or nostalgic reasons that I argue for closer relations with Germany today. It is for reasons of the deepest self-interest—the only reputable motive in foreign policy. We missed the European bus in the 1950s and in the 1960s the conductor, President de Gaulle, stopped us getting on it. We have never recovered from that false start and it looked until very recently

1097
that we would have to take a seat in the rear of the bus. But now we have a chance to drive it. I ask the Government what they are doing to bring that about.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, I find it necessary immediately to say how happy I am to participate in this debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He has made penetrating submissions and not wasted time. He raised many questions that can help us. Nevertheless we should be under no illusion that the pressures of the moment in either Germany or the Soviet Union will alter the consequences of unification. They will not. In our relationship with Germany we should be friends but not fools. We should be competitors and co-venturers. It is preposterous in any case to imagine that we can halt the Germans.
But we can exercise power through influence. Avenues are available. First, our voice in the Community should be used to tie Germany ever more fully into Community approaches. We should avoid isolating the Germans. Secondly, we should recognise our joint interest with France and urge the French to do the same. The best bargaining approach to Germany is a common one from France and Britain. France is likely to be more receptive than usual. The efforts made by the French in the 1980s to build an exclusive relationship with Germany by a series of bilateral arrangements were largely undermined by the events of 1990. The French are still smarting. Unfortunately the British Government appear to wish to do exactly the wrong thing and tread the same path as the French in the 1980s by applying to become Germany's most favoured friend. That is in return for vague promises. Frankly, neither France nor Britain alone can rely on their individual strengths to an extent which would allow them to veto any German single-mindedness. Acting together, the same is not true.
The aim must be that in return for co-operation with Germany, either at Community or other levels, we should expect a more substantial invitation to share i n the profits of expansion and indeed those available in the domestic German economy. What do I mean by co-operation? Let me give one practical example. We currently pay lip service to the American line on something which they call dual purpose technology transfer—I repeat, dual purpose technology transfer. That appears to mean that, when the Americans designate a particular form of new technology as having a purpose which although designed for civilian use may also have military application, the export of that technology is restricted or prevented. I am afraid that that is a smokescreen for American self-interest.
We should oppose those restrictions for two reasons: first, the restrictions harm our own exporters; secondly, to further a strategic purpose. The Germans at best are lukewarm to the regime imposed by the Americans. Our opposition to the restrictions would be viewed as something in the nature of a concession to Germany—a concession inviting a reward. That
1098
does not mean that we should not be vigilant about non-civilian use of technology but our vigilance could more profitably shift from prevention to verification. We can insist on proof of civilian use just as we now insist on the verification process in disarmament negotiations.
Ultimately, the only way that we can guarantee our profitable participation in the expansion eastwards is to influence the Germans as economic equals. While diplomatic accord with the French is one way forward, it is no excuse for inaction in strengthening and expanding our own industrial, financial and economic base. If the Government need to lead by intervention, so be it. I have spoken on these matters in other contexts. Suffice it to say that the present government have offered rhetoric rather than ability in this task. It is time that they went.
I conclude by saying that Germany's obvious eminence has required constructive co-operation on our part. We should be friendly but the friendship should begin and end with self-interest. Our interest is self-interest.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Annan for giving us the chance to debate this interesting and topical Motion. The Motion speaks of the case for improving relations with other member states. I took that to mean our informal relations rather than formal ones, but no matter. The wording rather assumes that it is a matter of 11 against one—or one against 11 if that is preferred—which, I suggest in all deference to my noble friend, is a misreading of the situation.
We are of course Europeans and always have been, just as the Swiss, Swedes, Poles and other non-members of the EC are and always have been Europeans. But we are not and never can be Continentals. Our geography has formed our history and our history has formed our culture, thought processes and loyalties. The French, among others, will never cease to resent the fact of the special relationship (which still exists, though it may have diminished) between Britain and the United States or the fact that, by and large, we feel closer to the Australians and the New Zealanders than we do to them. Frankly, that is just too bad. It is something that the French, among whom I number many friends, will simply have to put up with.
Leaving aside our island status, it is a great mistake to suppose that there exists an identity of ambition together with a striving for even greater homogeneity among the Continental member states. To date, the Latin countries have acquiesced in almost every directive spewed out by the Commission, for unsentimental but perfectly respectable considerations of commercial advantage and, above all, the consideration of ever rising standards of living. Those directives which they do not like they quietly ignore. The Germans have acquiesced in order to attain total respectability. The Belgians have done so as a means of subsuming their communal tensions—it is not too strong to refer to them as communal hatreds—within a greater whole.

1099
However, this acquiescence will not last for ever. Before long the people of those countries will become restive about the constant stream of interference and standardising of laws and regulations. I do not talk today about the common currency, the Uruguay round or those regulations which are absolutely necessary to achieve the famous level playing field in 21 months' time—vitally important though all those matters are. I refer to the petty interferences and efforts at standardisation and harmonisation which are not genuinely vital for a free movement of goods and services. My recipe for good relations between the peoples of the Community is to stop paying mere lip service to the idea of maximum national diversity within the European Community and to adopt a positive policy of live and let live.
It was, after all, that great German who has now become a naturalised Englishman and a great European in the true sense, as well as in the more restricted sense used by Euro-enthusiasts, who over 16 years ago publicly deplored what he described as "obsessive harmonization" which he predicted would stir up resentment and ill will between the peoples of the EC. I speak of course of Professor Ralf Dahrendorf. I make no apology for referring to his wise words yet again in your Lordships' House.
How extraordinary it was yesterday to hear calls from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, for common European speed limits. There are no common speed limits in the United States, Australia or Canada. One can only suppose that those people who call for such limits want the ancient nation states of Europe to have less freedom of independent action than the states of America and Australia or the provinces of Canada.
What business have people of one country to regulate the drinking water of people in another country hundreds of miles away? For example, what right have the Greeks to dictate to us the composition of our custard tarts and the temperature at which they should be stored? In fairness to the average Greek, he has not the slightest interest in the composition or storage temperature of our custard tarts, any more than the average Briton cares about the composition of the taramasalata eaten solely within Greece. Nevertheless, it must appear to the average person that he has been interfered with by individuals of other countries rather than by impersonal bureaucrats. That inevitably stirs up resentment against other nations.
I always enjoy the articles of Carole Tongue, Labour MEP, although I frequently disagree with them. However, even she—an enthusiast for greater European integration—wrote in the House Magazine of 6th May of the necessity,
"of ensuring that harmonisation respects national differences and concerns. This is very important politically. If the European Community does not show great sensitivity and flexibility on this issue, it could lose the support of many European citizens"—
to which one can only say, "Hear, hear".
However, we must beware the snare and delusion of remedying what is an undoubted democratic deficit by conferring more power upon the European Parliament. Apart from the fact that the composition
1100
of that parliament unfairly favours some countries at the expense of others, few people who stand for public office nowadays anywhere in the world believe in allowing the citizen to do his own thing. Quite sincerely, they believe that the gentleman in the legislature knows best.
One has only to look at the ratio of restrictive laws and regulations to permissive laws and regulations produced by this Parliament over the past 12 years—the ratio must be about 100:1—to understand the point that I make. It would be no more acceptable for bullfighting to be banned in Spain as a result of Belgian and British MEPs conspiring together, for shooting seasons or liquor licensing laws to be drastically altered in Portugal as a result of a casting vote of a German MEP or for 14 year-olds in Italy to be forbidden to ride mopeds as a result of a deal between Danish and Dutch MEPs than it would be if those activities were banned outright by the Commission.
I deplore the TGV line being driven from Valence to Aix-en-Provence and on to Nice across one of the most beautiful regions of Provence. But essentially it is none of my business; it is the business of the French themselves. Similarly a Frenchman may deplore the M.3 extension being driven across the chalk downs to the east of Winchester. But I am sure that the average Frenchman too realises that it is essentially none of his business; it is the business of the British alone.
The only solution is this. When the Treaty of Rome is renegotiated, as it surely will be soon, it must ensure that every country's right to be the sole regulator of its strictly internal affairs is spelt out in black and white.
Perhaps I may now refer to Germany. Unlike my noble friend Lord Annan who has been deeply involved at very high levels, I do not know the country well. My first visit was with a Cambridge friend in the spring of 1952. It was almost seven years after VE Day, at the start of a long zig-zag journey by rail to southern Yugoslavia, which was just starting to open its borders to the outside world. None of the devastation resulting from the Blitz and the VI and V2 attacks upon London had prepared us for what we saw in Germany. The centre of Mannheim, where we spent the first night, once a thriving industrial city, was totally flattened over an area of more than a square mile. Our hotel was a hole in the ground in the middle of that wasteland leading to an ingeniously converted air raid shelter—simple but adequate.
No one who saw the contrast between Germany then and the Germany of 15 or 20 years later can fail to respect the resourcefulness and hard work which made that transformation possible, aided though it may have been by a minimal defence burden. But it must be said that respect is not the same as trust or affection. It has always struck me as curious that, while some people who suffered badly under the Nazi occupation still dislike Germany and the Germans, others who suffered equally badly do not. Into the first category one can put the Dutch and the Czechs; into the second one can put the French, the Belgians and the Yugoslavs. Indeed the Yugoslavs were remarkably friendly with the Germans even in early 1952, perhaps

1101
because over 500 years they had become used to brutality and massacre and the Germans were merely par for the course.
Strangely, although Britain suffered less from the last war as a result of having fended off a Germany invasion, the British seem to ally themselves with the Dutch and the Czechs rather than the French and the Belgians—at least if one goes by children's comic strips and the tabloid newspapers. Mistrust of alleged latent Germany militarism can permeate even the higher reaches of government, as we saw in the latter part of 1990.
Yet intelligent British travellers to Germany in the 19th century, at least up until 1870, never considered the Germans to be inherently warlike or militarist, notwithstanding Frederick the Great, Marshal Blucher and a tradition of supplying mercenaries to all and sundry. Nor as a matter of fact did they appear particularly interested in physical fitness. "Strength through joy" was an unknown concept at that time. According to those observant travellers, the Germans much preferred sitting comfortably listening to opera or chamber music, munching innumerable cream cakes in the intervals. Their energies were concentrated on commercial success, possibly as a result of not having an overseas empire from which they could derive heap raw materials and to which they could sell their manufactured products without any great exertions.
One particularly perceptive English traveller reported a sea voyage that he took to Panama at about the turn of the century. On the ship there were 12 commercial travelers—10 German and two English. The Germans had taken the trouble to learn not only correct Spanish but also various South American Spanish dialects and one or two Indian languages. When confronted with a foreigner, the British commercial travellers merely shouted loudly in English. One can imagine who secured the orders. Alas, how little things appear to have changed.
We are right to oppose the CAP. It is unusual that a socially conscious country such as Germany should back a policy which impoverishes many people for the benefit Of many already well-to-do part-time Bavarian farmers. We are also right to worry about German commercial competition. However, we are probably wrong to worry about German military ambitions. Either Germany's present-day pacifism is a front to disguise such ambitions or the 75 years from 1870 were a n aberration and the Germans have now reverted to type. We should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that if we had not had to pay for the defence of Germany we too could have rebuilt our cities much faster?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I mentioned the fact that the Germans have not had to contribute a great deal towards their defence. The noble Baroness will see that tomorrow in Hansard.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has a happy knack of promoting debates which are both timely and controversial. His recent debate on education was a good example. Today's debate is equally timely given the critical stage that we are approaching this year in our relations with our Community partners. Nobody will contest that there is a strong case to which priority should be given for improving our relations with our partners, in particular Germany, given its past history and present dominance. It is only common sense to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is an expert on Germany. We should be well advised to heed what he says, although I do not agree with some of his proposals.
I turn to the suggestion of reforming the composition of the Security Council. I wish to remind your Lordships of a conversation between the late Lord Stewart of Fulham and President Gromyko that I overheard some years ago. Lord Stewart suggested similar reforms to which Gromyko responded in a weary fashion, "If you knew how difficult it was to get agreement on the present arrangements you would not start suggesting modifications". That is the right attitude to take at the moment. The time for reforming the United Nations is when the results of the Gulf war have produced in the organisation a more effective and strong-minded group.
We should seek to improve our relations not only with the European Community but with as many countries as possible. We should not forget old and tried political and commercial friends. Last year your Lordships had a short debate on the future of the Commonwealth. There was general agreement that our historic links should be maintained, although in most cases Europe would be given priority.
I wish to comment on our relations with the Community. There are long-standing difficulties with Spain and the Republic of Ireland about Gibraltar and Ulster respectively. They are well known and no immediate solutions can confidently be foreseen. However, the news in today's newspapers suggests that movement may be made in both directions. We must therefore have patience and recognise that such difficulties will colour the attitude of Spain, Ireland and this country in respect of the Community.
Secondly, I wish to emphasise that our relations with the Community, concentrated in the two inter-governmental conferences now in the process of negotiation, are reaching a critical stage. It was originally agreed that the negotiations should be confidential. Needless to say, there have been copious leaks. With some success the Prime Minister has set the tone for our participation, and clearly the atmosphere has improved. One hopes that it will not be spoilt by Ministers and ex-Ministers taking insufficient care over comments about our Community partners, in which case the press will no doubt react.
There are well-defined obstacles ahead in the inter-governmental negotiations. I need not remind your Lordships of them. It would be wrong at this time to press our Ministers for a detailed report and to

1103
attempt to extract from them statements that would make the task of our negotiators more difficult. However, we should be deceiving ourselves if we believed that the Prime Minister's statements have solved the problems ahead. Nor do we have a clear idea of how the Opposition plans to deal with the problems that will arise.
Among the Europeans, ambitious individuals and countries are advocating positions that are clearly unwelcome and disadvantageous to us. Particularly dangerous to our interests would be an attempt to steamroller the next council in June before the two conferences have explored the necessary compromises. We should resist any attempt to do so. Good relations between the members cannot be achieved if attempts are made to impose one-sided concessions.
One of the welcome aspects of the intergovernmental conferences is that decisions are being sought by representatives of sovereign states answerable to national parliaments. The Commission and the European Parliament are observers at the conferences and are not in the driving seat. Constant harking back to the intentions of the founding fathers is not the answer to the way ahead. The founding fathers played their part but today the world is very different. It is not now necessary for Members of this House to anticipate and to discuss the intergovernmental negotiations. We must wait until the obstacles to satisfactory agreement have been identified. Decisions can then be taken about whether we can agree to an amended treaty. That will not be easy; it must be acceptable to Parliament and to the country as a whole. It will dictate our future relations with the Community members.
In the meantime we must keep on good terms with our partners. We must also ensure that the United States is given a defence role which is to its own advantage and that of Europe. As regards their defence during the past 50 years, the members of the Community owe a debt to the United States and to this country.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just addressed us is an acknowledged expert on international affairs, as is, in a rather different sense, the noble Lord who speaks next. He is speaking from the Labour Benches today. He may be independent but he has paid us the compliment of sitting on the Labour Benches. I do not claim to be an expert on international affairs but I have one or two qualifications which may persuade the House to allow me to speak on Anglo-German relations.
I was Minister for the British zone of Germany from 1947 to 1948. I was responsible for 26,000 members of the Control Commission. I believe that, by that time, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who spoke so brilliantly, may have returned to academic life, so I was never responsible for him. However, I was connected early on with Anglo-German affairs. I was
1104
the first chairman of the Anglo-German Association which was formed later. I have always been a strong, although somewhat taciturn, supporter of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, described meeting Dr. Adenauer. I shall describe another meeting in 1950. I got to know him quite well when I was Minister for Germany but in 1950, when I was Minister for Civil Aviation, I paid him a courtesy call. The Adenauer/Schuman plan for coal and steel, which was the forerunner of the European Community, was just coming forward at that time. Greatly overestimating my significance, Adenauer begged me to persuade the Prime Minister, Clem Attlee, and Ernest Bevin to join the plan. History would have been very different had I had the slightest influence. I tried to explain to Dr. Adenauer that he should not rely on me but he insisted on sending me back with that message. Of course, I got nowhere.
I have said before that I admire Lord Attlee more than any other British statesman this century. I have described him as an ethical giant. However, I must say that, if he had a weakness, it was his attitude towards Germany. Some time after 1950 when I was chairman of the Anglo-German Association I tried to persuade him to become a patron. He hated to cause pain to anyone towards whom he was well disposed. However, he finally brought himself to tell me that he had never cared for the Germans. In order to be fair he said, "Vi and I once had a German maid. We became very fond of her. But she was an exception". I am afraid that that was his attitude towards Germany.
Today we are facing a new phase in British policy towards Germany. The first phase was the Potsdam phase of combining with the so-called allies—United States, France and Soviet Union—to hold down Germany indefinitely. In those days Germany was thought of as a united Germany to be held down by the four powers. In 1947 I sat, as a timid acolyte, beside Mr. Bevin throughout the Council of Foreign Ministers, with Mr. Molotov a yard or two away. After a time the Council of Foreign Ministers was getting nowhere and General Marshall and M. Bidault decided that there was no point in continuing. Ernest Bevin had to go along with that but he was reluctant to give up the idea of a united Europe. However, in the end he accepted the position and, in my estimation, did more than any other man to bring about the Atlantic pact.
An Atlantic pact, with Germany eventually playing a strong military part, had seemed inconceivable a little while earlier. Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, an old friend of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was then head of the German section. He summed up the matter in a memorandum at that time by saying, "You cannot hold down Germany with one hand and hold back Russia with the other". Therefore, the policy of holding down Germany indefinitely had to be abandoned. That was the end of the first phase. There is no doubt that that was the policy at that time.
Soon after I became the Minister for the British zone I commented to a high Foreign Office official that the pension plans being arranged for the Control Commission seemed to imply that we should occupy

1105
Germany for at least 25 years. He replied very solemnly, "I would be very sorry if I did not think that that v' as the plan". One can remember how quickly that plan was scrapped as a result of Russian sabotage. It was not a deliberate, well-intentioned move on our part although there were many well-intentioned people about. The Russians destroyed the Potsdam plan.
In the summer of 1947 I went out to Germany in a well-meaning way to preach a version of Christianity. I found many half-starved children in the streets of Dusseldorf and I tried to encourage them to be proud of being German. That got me into quite a lot of trouble. That was not our policy at all. I was asked by Foreign Office officials, who were no doubt carrying out government policy most correctly, whether I minded having a public relations officer with me when I went back to Germany so that my indiscretions could be explained away. I said that I had no objection but that I should continue to say what I thought until eventually I got kicked upstairs. However, that is a long story. In the meantime, that policy was destroyed by Russian aggression.
The plan underlying the second phase was to take Western Germany into a partnership based on the idea that Germany was weak and that Russia was not only very strong but also very frightening. On those assumptions, the Atlantic pact was formed. Forty years later the situation has changed again and we are entering a new phase. Germany is stronger than it has ever been. As regards Russia, I doubt whether even the experts like the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, would care to say confidently that Russia is permanently weakened. She certainly seems to have lost permanent control of her satellites but who can say whether she is permanently weakened and less dangerous? At present the situation is very obscure.
My plea—and I am putting in a slightly cruder way the more refined analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Annan—is that the old, half-sarcastic, phrase, "Don't let's be beastly to the Germans" should be supplanted by a new slogan: "Don't let's be frightened of the Germans". That is the message which I wish to offer to the House today.
Even those in the ranks of Tuscany must agree that the present Prime Minister has made a very good start in his altitude towards Germany. I am sure that, when he is supplanted by leaders of other political persuasions, the same enlightened policy will be pursued, perhaps even more strongly. I am confident that British policy towards Germany will go forward on the right lines. However, I wish to emphasise that we should not be frightened of the Germans. That advice is based on long experience of where fear may lead us. Fear led us astray after the First World War. We held down the Germans until Hitler appeared on the scene and we held them down again after the next war until the Russians sabotaged that. Let us not make the same mistake again.
4.9 p.m
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I believe we owe the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a double debt for both the theme and the timing of this
1106
debate. With the Gulf war behind us, and decisive discussions on a common European foreign policy urged upon us by Brussels ahead of us, this is a fitting moment at which to pause and reflect on relationships with our continental neighbours and especially the new united Germany.
The Gulf war and its aftermath has been a watershed in relations between Britain and Europe. There is no doubt that at the outset both the collective voice of the Europe of Brussels and the gut reaction of individual European countries have differed greatly from this country's instinctive as well as considered response. It seemed as if the various European nations behaved according to traditional stereotype: the Dutch, stout and solid; France, prone to vacillate at first, co-operative at the end, yet always stylishly unpredictable; our Mediterranean neighbours—Spain, Italy and Greece—probably largely because of their intricate ties with the Islamic world, yearning throughout for even the faintest signal from Baghdad to justify face-saving accommodation. And Germany: how did Germany behave? Hesitant, uncertain, embarrassed, one might even say sheepish and then turning more than half circle to munificent support and positive action.
The German attitude bears examination and deserves compassionate understanding. Deeply involved with the troubled East German economy and the delicate last stages of unification with several hundred thousand Soviet troops still on the national soil, a sudden switch of priorities to a new crisis flash point proved immensely difficult. Moreover, any form of military intervention beyond the territorial limits set by the NATO alliance presented a real psychological as well as political and, indeed, constitutional problem.
The younger generation of Germans is overwhelmingly pacific, if not pacifist, and staunchly anti-interventionist. I think it was Madame de Stael who once said that the Germans are a nation like any other but only more so. It is a fact that when Germans embrace a cause they do so with a thoroughness, skill and dedication that makes them stand out. When they embraced a militarist ideology, when they extolled the state above the individual, they went to enormous extremes.
There has, of course, also been an important libertarian strain in Germany history from the Age of Enlightenment to the present, but it has only intermittently been allowed to surface and prevail. Yet in this last phase of German history for almost half a century the Germans have proved capable of building a truly civil society, a smoothly functioning parliamentary system, a free and yet socially responsible market economy which makes them the pride of Europe and, indeed, the whole civilised world. The pragmatic humanism of men like Adenauer and Heuss, Erhard and Schiller, Brandt, Schmidt, and indeed Weiszaecker and Kohl, have made the new Germany responsible partners of both the Western military alliance and the European Community.
The Gulf crisis has been a traumatic experience for the German nation. It has proved to the Germans that they can no longer plead total absorption by their own

1107
problems. They must face up to their responsibilities as a European and world power. In a crisis such as that provoked by Saddam Hussein one cannot simply buy oneself out of responsibility. The German public was shocked when it was revealed how much German industry had contributed to Iraq's war machine, not only quantitatively but, in the field of chemical weapons,horribile dictu, qualitatively as well. The debate in Germany continues and I believe that this is likely to be the last international crisis when Germany will still behave like a political dwarf and economic giant.
What lessons are we to draw from our neighbour's performance in the gravest international political crisis since the Second World War? The advocates of accelerated political union and a common European foreign policy point to the need for Europe keeping always in step, acting as a block, speaking with one voice and presenting an independent persona. The opponents of European integration have little difficulty in pillorying the indecision, dissonance and, at times, even callousness of certain European attitudes and interventions. I believe that the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes.
A greater involvement of Britain in the European council is desirable; indeed it has paid off. The Prime Minister's intervention on the Kurds, in the question of reparations and possible war crime trials as a result of transgressions in Iraq, has won extensive European support. Britain's resolve to work from the heart of Europe, reasoning her case from within rather than sulking on the margins, is and has been acknowledged to be the right policy. It is indeed the right policy for all European countries for there is no doubt that there is not sufficient harmony among Europeans on a whole range of issues—the Middle East, East-West and North-South. There is no sufficient harmony that would justify a degree of institutionalisation where, by a simple count of heads, national governments would greatly restrict or even abandon their right to independent foreign policies. That may happen one day in the future—I hope it will—but not yet. We must not forget that it is quite probable that before the turn of the century a European Community may include Austria, Sweden, Norway, Finland, possibly Switzerland; not to mention some of the newly emergent democracies in East Central and Eastern Europe.
But for this country relations with Germany, government to government and people to people, are of paramount importance. The time for 19th century power politics, an outmoded inter-European balance of power, is over. Closer ties with Germany does not mean isolating France; nor does the undoubted and profound Franco-German partnership necessarily threaten Great Britain. This is the age of pluralism in every sphere. Consortial thinking in industry and trade, multinational projects in social, educational and scientific realms is the order of the day. Germany will be the leading power in developing, indeed, nursing back to economic health, the countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea. We should be involved with Germany as partners. This will not only give us
1108
fresh opportunities but in a way relieve the Germans to be free to spread their wings and share the burden in helping other areas of Europe and the third world.
Our political systems have a growing affinity and stand to gain by closer co-operation. The British Labour Party, since its conversion to Europe, can further strengthen its ties with German Social Democracy. My neighbours on these Benches—the Liberal Democrats—will find much common ground with Germany's FDP and the party opposite may well owe its probable acceptance into the fold of a European conservative bloc in Strasbourg to the good offices of the German CDU.
When Helmut Kohl quoted the words of Thomas Mann, that the great ambition of his nation should not be to create a German Europe but a European Germany, he was reflecting the mood of the vast majority of his people. There are no certainties in history and there are always dormant demons in the subsoil of a nation's—any nation's—history but they are best banished by comprehension and goodwill among neighbours. I submit that a growing friendship between this country and the Germany of today and tomorrow should lie at the heart of our European policy.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for allowing us to participate in this timely and interesting debate. I thank him also for the admirable way in which he introduced it and for his survey of Anglo-Saxon attitudes to Germany, which are schizoid and sometimes self-contradictory. On the one hand, some of us claim to be terrified of being dominated by a Germany which is an aggressive economic and, as we say under our breath, potential military power. On the other hand, the Gulf War occurs and we express contempt for the Germans' pacific behaviour. I should prefer to live with a Germany that adopts the attitude to the Gulf that it did than one with the attitude expressed by those who fear its dominance.
In this debate I should like to examine an aspect of our self-interest which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, rightly said should be the basis of foreign policy. It is also Europe's self-interest and can best, and probably only, be achieved through European policies; that is, through developing European Community policies, economic and political, towards the states of central Europe. In order to do that, it is essential that this country should develop the strongest and most intimate political and economic relations with our colleagues in the Community.
It is inevitable that during the months since the autumn our attention has been diverted from these matters by the dramatic and tragic events which have occurred in the Gulf. But it remains the fact that today and for the next 10 or 20 years the future of Central Europe must be a major preoccupation in Europe and a major responsibility of the European Community. It is only by achieving the incorporation of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary within the economic and political systems of Western democratic societies,

1109
and the establishment in those countries of political democracy and free economies, that the peace and stability of Europe can be made more secure. Such a condition is a prerequisite of that security and stability. I suggest that one of the conditions for achieving that is that those countries can realistically look forward to joining the Community. Thus they can be protected from chaos in Russia and from the kind of trouble that we are witnessing in Yugoslavia.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of the task. It is equally hard to exaggerate the difficulty of achieving it. The task of extending democracies and building democratic societies comes after 40 years of communist government and atomisation of society. By that I mean the destruction of all civil institutions. A civil society is one in which the interests of groups and individuals are articulated by groups and individuals independent of government. Such a state of affairs must be the ultimate enemy of a communist society. War has to be conducted in such a society in order to destroy all movements, bodies and individuals who might promote individual or group autonomy.
Therefore in discussing the crisis in Central Europe it is far easier to talk about the economic crisis, which is quantifiable, which can be described in figures and which can be measured, than to talk about the political structures which have to be built in this kind of social desert. Institutions have to be established in societies where all needs and requirements have found no adequate means of identification, representation or articulation.
Let us consider the case of Poland. A distinguished Pole told me that the Poles have no particular respect for their political institutions for the simple reason that they have no reason to have any respect for them. One can only conclude from that that for Poland and the other countries the democratic movement rests on exceedingly fragile foundations. Therefore, Poland requires the maximum economic and political support from us in the West. Poland needs to have an objective, a goal and a destination to work towards.
The results of the Polish election demonstrate that fact. Forty per cent. of the electorate did not vote and the 60 per cent. who did gave victory to Walesa and defeat to Mazowiecki. Twenty-five per cent. of the voters voted for an extremely dubious and previously unknown figure. How do we interpret that? I interpret it as recognition by the Polish people that communism had failed and that Western democracy was better and brought wealth. They voted for what they believed would be democracy because it brought freedom and wealth.
In the result, freedom brought with it a sharp drop in the standard of living, a sharp rise from zero to well over one million unemployed and therefore a sharp disappointment. The danger is obvious. Disillusion with the delayed arrival of the economic rewards promised by democracy may encourage people to turn to some other solution, whether it be nationalism or a charismatic leader, to solve their problems. It is in warding off that outcome that the role of this country,
1110
and still more of the EC, is so crucial. It must be said that we in this country can do rather more than we have.
Perhaps I may give two small examples. The Polish debt is 45 billion dollars, of which 70 per cent. is owed to governments. The question at issue is the degree of forgiveness that should be granted. If you ask bankers they will tut-tut and say that forgiveness is a bad thing.
Nonetheless, I believe that they wanted retrospective legislation to get them out of the difficulty caused by various recent swaps with local authorities which they had entered into. How much is forgiven seems a political question. The object is to give democracy a fair wind and to speed up the rewards which free enterprise can offer. Therefore generosity is the wise course in our own self-interest. A cut of 50 per cent. in the debt has been agreed. That should be increased as advocated by the United States and, I believe, also by the French.
Perhaps I may give a much smaller example; namely, the question of visas. Unlike the rest of the countries in the EC and our treatment of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, we still insist that Poles apply for visas before coming here. The cost of a visa is one month's salary. If you do not get it you do not get your money back. You have to pay to apply. A far higher proportion of Poles are refused visas than Hungarians or Czechs. The visa processing work clogs up the embassy. It causes the maximum of It does this country's reputation nothing but harm. I believe that no one in the Foreign Office in his heart of hearts supports that policy. It bears the stamp of the Home Office and of all its heavy-handed tactlessness. If you should not take bankers' advice about politics nor should you let your foreign affairs be run by the Home Office.
I say this because the argument I am putting forward is that the development of democracy in the Central European countries is of crucial importance to the future of Europe as a whole. It is so because the chief beneficiaries of success, apart from the countries themselves, will be the members of the EC. In the event of failure, the chief losers, apart from the countries themselves, will be the members of the EC. It is the EC which has responsibility for co-ordinating aid to Central Europe. It is the prospect of joining the EC which provides for those three countries the main objective, goal and destination to which they look forward. It provides the magnet which is pulling them towards democracy and economic reform. If those countries are disappointed in that ambition or if they thought they were likely to be disappointed, it would be a grave setback to the measures they are taking.
It is my view that it is through the EC that the security needs of the Central European countries will be met. At the moment, with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, these countries belong to no military or political alliance. They feel a strong sense of insecurity and isolation. Of recent months the USSR has been trying to persuade them to make a series of bilateral defensive pacts with the USSR, which is in neither their interests nor ours. Therefore, I believe that the security problem is one which we should take very seriously. If these propositions are true, then the

1111
development of a coherent Community policy which deals with economics, politics and security has to be pursued. In the development of that policy I believe that this country must be at the heart of policy-making and of its execution.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for enabling us to have this debate on our relations with the Community, and with a united Germany in particular, and also for his masterly speech. We have had a most interesting discussion, and all noble Lords who have participated have made knowledgeable speeches. I much enjoyed the relevant reflections of my noble friend Lord Longford.
We are all conscious that Britain's relationship with the Community, both before and after we became a member, has been fraught with doubts and difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that we had missed the European bus, and I agree with him that there is a very strong case for saying that we should have been in at the start negotiating the Treaty of Rome with the Six; but, for reasons which we know, that opportunity was missed and we lost important advantages as a result.
We have been a member of the Community for nearly 20 years and by now it is unthinkable that we should contemplate a divorce, although there are many in this country who prefer sleeping in different bedrooms. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher is one of those, but with the advent of Mr. Major one senses an increasing warmth in the matrimonial home. His speech in Bonn, when he said that,
"Britain would work at the very heart of Europe,"
was an indication of that. It was warmly welcomed on the one hand and regarded with suspicion on the other. Mr. Major has also warned that the pace of economic and political union should not be rushed. I think that most of us take the view that that is sensible. It was also the view of the Select Committee which produced a valuable report on the subject and of noble Lords who took part in the debate on it a few weeks ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, also referred to our share of the defence expenditure since the war. As he knows, there have been significant developments in that field over the past few months, upon which we should much value the noble Earl's comments when he winds up the debate. The House is aware of the draft treaty which was presented in mid-April to the Intergovernmental Conference on European Political Union, which was rejected by the Government. The draft proposed an independent Community defence policy by 1996. That would involve a very substantial switch in British Government policy. It would involve turning the Western European Union into the defence arm of the new European union. The draft was to have gone to the EC summit next month, but because of what has been described as a deepening split inside the Community over whether it should assume responsibility for defence policy, we are informed that the meeting has now been deferred until next October.
1112
Incidentally, that is also the month in which the Community is to decide on a European political union treaty, including a common foreign and security policy.
Therefore, it seems clear that there is a serious rift between the Community and NATO on those basic issues. I shall be glad to know whether the noble Earl agrees with me on that. It has been reported that the United States Administration have expressed concern. Mr. James Baker, the Secretary of State, has asked the Community for assurances that,
"nothing would be decided that would weaken NATO or call into question the military structure of the Alliance".
These are matters of considerable importance to us and to the Community. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us about the Government's attitude to these policy developments.
We know that the French and German Governments are anxious that greater powers on defence and foreign affairs should be given to the European Community. To what extent does the Government support or oppose that? We all remember the arguments which took place within the Community during the Gulf war. There certainly appeared to be some lack of understanding and co-ordination both on military and diplomatic strategy throughout those weeks. The result of that was that Members in both Houses were questioning whether it might not be too soon to contemplate political union and defence union. I recall noble Lords in this House making that very point during the debates we had on the Gulf war. Matters have improved since then, but we must learn from these experiences as we proceed, because it is vital that the Community should build on a sound foundation of mutual trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, stressed the need to take positive steps to improve relations with Germany. I am sure that he is right, although the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, saw obstacles to at least one of his suggestions. I noted that Herr Hans-Dietrich Genscher has said that we need a decision-making executive body as an institution of pan-European security and co-operation. He is of course looking to the future, and we must be encouraged by that.
As I have said, relations have improved since the Gulf war ended, and the Community has responded constructively to certain initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government, namely to the safe havens proposal and the recommendation for a United Nations police force. On this side, we have given the former our strong support, and we support the latter in principle, although we should like to know more about it; for example, how a police force would differ from the UN forces which are already in the Gulf and which have operated in other parts of the world as well.
Taking all that into account, I must ask the noble Earl whether I am right in assuming that the Government's objective is to secure new agreements and initiatives in other areas of foreign policy.
As I have indicated before, the immediate task is to get the balance right between the Community and

1113
NATO How does the Minister reconcile the review of NATO policies in which the United States is involved on the one hand and the draft treaty which commits the Community to an independent defence policy on the other hand? The majority of Community governments support the latter, but for over 40 years Europe in defence has rested upon the axis of the WEU, the EC and NATO. We are on the threshold of a new era and there is need for wisdom and sound judgment on all sides if we are to fashion balanced policies
Speeches have been made which reveal the apprehensions which still exist and which have been referred to by a number of noble Lords. Mrs. Thatcher has spoken of,
"the dangers of Germany dominating Europe".
Chancellor Kohl responded by saying,
"We do rot want to dominate anyone. We know that Europe can only come about if we all show respect for each other".
We know that the Prime Minister's comparative moderation has encouraged Community leaders. I have read articles by the Prime Minister, by my right honourable friend Mr. Neil Kinnock and by the German Foreign Minister in The House Magazine of 15th April with great interest. Mr. Major said:
"We and the Germans agree that nothing should be done to underniine the Atlantic Alliance or the essential role played by the United States in the defence of Europe".
Furthermore, both he and Mr. Kinnock believe in developing the relationship between Germany and Britain. My right honourable friend rightly pointed out that
"After a terrible war we successfully turned our relationship from that of deadly enemies to close and enduring friends".
The cementing of that friendship is essential if we are to have a permanent peace in Europe.
The German Minister of Foreign Affairs also appeared to be optimistic. He said:
"We will advocate that the European Community remain open to tie democracies of Central and Eastern Europe".
He goes on to argue that,
"anyone wishing to keep them out would be abusing the Community's name—it being a 'European' and not a 'West European' Community; and they would be detracting from the Treaties of Rome".
Such an expansion of the European Community would take a little time but his objective is one which I think we should support. In the meantime, we should give careful thought to the effect of the proposed Community defence policy on the new democracies and on neutral countries which are preparing their application for membership of the Community. We on this side welcome Austria's application and also those from Sweden and other EFTA countries. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the proposal to establish a European economic area is proceeding. I know that there are complications, especially on fisheries, but I hope that these can in due course be resolved.
With regard to the East European countries which are showing a keen interest in EC membership, perhaps the noble Earl will tell us how the proposed accession of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia as full members is progressing. That would be a very significant development. I agree with the wise remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about Poland and the other East European countries.
1114
We are fortunate to have the report of the Select Committee on European Agreements with these three countries which has just been published. I am the first to mention this in the debate. Noble Lords will agree when they read it that it is an impressive document. The central conclusion of the committee is that the rebuilding of the three economies of those countries will be,
"an enormous and daunting task".
It goes on to say that,
"it is difficult to over-estimate the problems which face the three countries in converting themselves into free democracies".
Any agreement with the Community depends on the success of political reform and the maintenance of democracy. The committee concluded that, if that assumption fails, the agreement fails—a most serious development. There are other conditions, but I think we shall need a separate debate on the report if we are to do it justice. One further point is that the provision of financial support to the three countries is essential and is likely to remain so until the end of the decade.
Time does not allow me to deal with other matters such as the social charter, which we support, and also the huge task of reconstruction and modernisation which faces Eastern Europe as a whole. A short debate like this reminds us that the problems facing us and our partners and allies are vast and complex. Our primary task is to help create a stable and democratic Europe. We must not let ourselves be diverted from that aim because success here means peace, whereas failure could mean disaster.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for tabling this Motion. We have had a useful discussion which has revealed the close linkage that exists between bilateral and multilateral relations.
An increasing number of questions of international importance now have a substantial multilateral dimension. The fight against drugs and terrorism and the challenges of the environment are but the most recent examples. In the modern world the vitality of a bilateral relationship is often expressed through co-operation in multilateral fora rather than through traditional bilateral exchanges. This is the case with Britain and the other member states of the European Community and is a natural and welcome development. Thus I will not dwell on the bilateral element of the Motion, except for our relations with Germany which have been highlighted. I merely say that Britain not only instinctively looks to strengthen its bilateral relations with all our Community partners but also with all countries that share our common values of democracy, freedom and justice. I shall focus what I have to say on Britain's relationship with, and role in, the European Community. I shall set out some guiding principles.
First, the Community is central to British policy making. The 1992 internal market programme, for example, shows more than any other development in the history of the Community the ever closer integration of member states' economies. Britain's

1115
prosperity and the welfare of its people are inextricably bound up with the successful completion of the single market.
Secondly, Britain is a committed member of the Community. We abide by the treaty obligations we have freely entered into. Our commitment to the respect of Community law is shown by the fact that the UK has implemented more items of single market legislation than any other member state except Denmark. But implementation is not the end of the story. To have a fair and free market, enforcement is essential. That is why we regularly urge all member states to improve their records and have tabled proposals on improving implementation and enforcement within the Community at the political union IGC.
Thirdly, we are playing a constructive role in discussions on the future development of the Community. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the foreword to the Government's latest White Paper on developments in the European Community,
"it is in our national self-interest to help build and shape the future Europe—and to do so with enthusiasm".
We agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said. Nobody, we believe, can seriously contemplate a United Kingdom in any real sense outside Europe. The shape and structure of Europe is in a process of remarkable development, and the future is a challenging one. The British Government are determined to play an active role in this process. Our commitment to, and constructive participation in, the Community does not however mean that we adopt an uncritical approach to proposals within the Community. On the contrary, we shall continue to fight our corner ferociously where essential UK interests are at stake. We must not forget that Britain is the second largest of only four net contributors to the Community budget. That concentrates the mind. If more countries were net contributors that would be beneficial in preparing and adhering to sensible economic and budgetary proposals. It is essential that we examine thoroughly every proposal for Community action. Our record in amending those proposals which are inimical to UK interests is a good one.
Our Community membership and our ability to present a united front with our Community partners bring us advantages on the world stage. Our combined weight gives the Community a negotiating power which no member state would possess in its own right. And as the EC gains in stature, the UK's position and influence in the Community will be an increasingly important factor for bilateral relations with both our Community partners and non-EC countries.
An important element of this is Britain's strong support for the process of European political co-operation. Indeed, it was the United Kingdom which first suggested putting this process on a legal basis, now enshrined in the Single European Act. For example, recently my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have put our ideas for safe havens and for a UN police force in
1116
Iraq to our European partners. We received their immediate and full support. That gave us a powerful basis on which to launch our ideas at the UN with success. We applaud the German role in helping the Kurds. Like the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, we welcome the generous German contribution to our costs in the Gulf war.
The Prime Minister said in Bonn in March that he wanted Britain to be,
"at the heart of Europe, working with our partners in building the future".
That will involve constant dialogue with our partners. We will continue to be in the heart of that dialogue as we have been, for example, over the single market and negotiations on the Community's inter-governmental conferences on economic and monetary union and political union. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, these are the focus of discussion in the Community.
An important aim in the conference on political union has been to encourage the Community to take a close look at its processes and procedures—a subject that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, majored. I agree with the noble Lord that we must try to improve the way it works and increase its efficiency. The Community should act only where it needs to, and in those areas it should operate effectively. Financial accountability and a greater appreciation of the financial implications of policy initiatives, together with closer scrutiny of Community activities, are therefore important. The hand of the European Court of Justice should be strengthened to ensure compliance with its judgments.
These are reforms aimed at improving and strengthening the existing structure of the Community. We consider it important to maintain the institutional balance envisaged by the Community's founders; that is, the balance between the respective roles of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. That balance has served the Community and its member states well and should, we think, remain the basis for closer co-operation in the future.
On economic and monetary union, the UK has made it clear that we cannot commit ourselves to move to a single currency without a separate decision at the appropriate time by the UK Government and Parliament. Subject to that reserve we are negotiating actively and constructively at the conference. It is no secret that we are sceptical about the claimed benefits of a single currency and very conscious of the costs—particularly of a premature move to a single currency regime. That is why we have laid great emphasis on the need for the Community to satisfy itself that member states' economies have converged satisfactorily before the Community moves between the stages of EMU.
We believe that it is important to adopt an evolutionary approach that works with the grain of free and open markets in a way designed to ensure lasting benefits. We should seek to build first on those areas on which we can agree. One example of this philosophy are our proposals for a hard ecu which are designed with these objectives in mind. Many of our

1117
views are now accepted by our partners. They are also coming to recognise that no member state can be forced to accept a single currency against its will. We remain confident that the negotiations in Brussels will ultimately find a treaty language which respects this position.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, talked of the Franco-German alliance. He wanted a British-Franco-German tripartite alliance. The noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, said that we ought to be closer to France. We believe that within the EC, bilateral relations with countries are very important. But we are not seeking to make permanent alliances within the Community. The Community will not thrive on exclusive relationships. Thus we constantly seek common ground with different member states on different issues. The tactics of negotiations in the EC are essential—all the more so where qualified majority voting applies.
Having dealt generally with our bilateral relations in the Community, I shall deal with the Community's hopes 'or the future, with special reference, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, to Eastern Europe. The Government strongly welcome the expansion of the Community's relations with Central and Eastern Europe. The EC has trade and co-operation agreements with all countries except Albania and gives generous assistance to support economic and political reform programmes. First, steps were taken to allow them easier access to the Community markets. Secondly, the PHARE programme will spend some£600 million this year on technical assistance in the priority sectors of agriculture, training, the environment and economic restructuring. Thirdly, the EC is willing to provide generous loans in support of IMF programmes to help mitigate the worsening economic climate in which those countries must implement their reforms.
But perhaps the most important single step is the negotiation of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Association agreements were originally a British idea, enthusiastically adopted by our EC partners. Over their 10 year life they will provide for free trade with the Community. They will facilitate a political dialogue on all major current issues and, in the longer term, through co-operation in such spheres as standards, Customs procedures, industrial restructuring, the environment, statistics, company law and many others, will draw Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia closer still to the Community. If, in the end, they decide to apply to join, they can fulfil all the obligations which membership imposes. That will surely bring closer the European ideal of the Community's founding fathers. It was the policies of the Western world that encouraged the lights to be lit again in Eastern Europe. Those countries must not be denied the opportunity to join the Community in the future.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, calls our attention particularly to the case for improving relations with Germany. I am happy to be able to assure tile noble Lord that this is a case well understood by Her Majesty's Government. Our relations with Germany are in an excellent state and
1118
we are working hard to improve them yet further. On 11th March my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and a number of colleagues visited Bonn for a very successful meeting with Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues.
Our personal relationships are fully in tune with the close working relationship we enjoy with Germany on a range of issues both inside and outside the European Community. Germany is our ally, our partner and our friend. That is why last year we welcomed Germany's unification in peace and freedom. We were proud to play the central role that we did in resolving the external aspects of unification through the 2+4 process. We worked too for the speedy integration of the new Lênder of Germany into the European Community.
Completing the economic integration of the former German Democratic Republic will take time and is not without its difficulties. But the united Germany remains a strong economic power. German industry, like that of Britain, will be looking to take advantage of the benefits of the single market programme. Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, we believe that it is up to the United Kingdom, in common with other members of the European Community, to rise to the challenge that German economic success poses. But that is not to say that it is a threat. I am not one of those who wish that our friends were poor, our allies weaker, or our partners less reliable.
I wish to turn now to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. He referred to the CFSP. Britain is committed to strengthening the role and identity of the European Community on the international scene. As part of that process we fully support the aim of working towards a common foreign and security policy. To promote that aim the UK tabled at an early stage of the inter-governmental conference a draft treaty text on CFSP. That marked a significant step forward from Title 3 of the Single European Act which sets out the existing rules for European political co-operation.
The draft treaty incorporated two principles which we believe to be fundamental if Europe's role is to be strengthened. The first is that the procedures for defining and implementing the CFSP should be flexible, pragmatic and based on consensus. Introducing mechanisms such as majority voting would weaken Europe's voice and lead to acrimony and disunity. The second principle is that we should distinguish between the security and defence dimension of the Twelve and make sure that any European defence dimension does not weaken but reinforces NATO in which we already have a tried and tested common defence policy. Your Lordships will recall a recent debate on the future of NATO during which I set out the Government's position carefully. It is right that Europe should assume greater responsibility for its own defence. But the way forward is to develop the European defence identity through the Western European Union, establishing a role for it as a bridge between NATO and the Twelve. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we

1119
cannot ignore the very constructive and helpful role that America has played and which we wish it to continue to play in the security and peace of Europe.
We have articulated these ideas extensively in the debate on the CFSP. They do not go as far as some partners would wish but all have welcomed them as a constructive contribution to the debate. We regard them as the only realistic way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also raised the question of the EC and EFTA. The Community is currently pursuing negotiations with EFTA to establish a European economic area. This will extend the single market to the EFTA countries. We hope to conclude the negotiations in the summer, with the EEA entering into force in January 1993 at the same time as the single market. The United Kingdom strongly supports the EEA and is working hard for a successful outcome. The EEA will bring economic benefits to the UK, the other Community countries and EFTA, and will facilitate future accession to the Community by those EFTA countries which wish to join.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked how the Foreign Office might react to his proposal that Germany should join the UN Security Council. The noble Lord suggested that we should consult our Community partners over the UN Security Council business. I can assure him that we made considerable efforts to brief the EC non-council members in New York. He mentioned the fact that Britain is a member of the UN Security Council. He made no mention of the fact that France is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. When there is an agreed position of the Twelve we reflect that in our dealings in the Security Council as indeed does France. I am afraid that the noble Lord's suggestion of rotating membership of the UN Security Council is simply not provided for by the UN Charter. When one considers the UN Charter, I am sure the noble Lord, like the rest of your Lordships, took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said when he reminded the House of the difficulties of reopening the UN Charter.
The noble Lord also mentioned the timing of the inter-governmental conferences. We hope that both conferences will be able to conclude by the end of the year, that is, by the time of the December European Council. That should allow member states to ratify the results by the end of 1992. It is the timetable to which we are working. That said, these are complicated negotiations among 12 nation states, each with their own interests to pursue. We do not underestimate the magnitude of the task.
In conclusion, Britain can and must exert a powerful influence on the Community. We have done so in the past. We are doing so now. The Government will continue to do so in the future.
5 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having expounded at such length the Government's policy. As a result, I am considerably better informed, although I cannot say that I am any
1120
the wiser. That is not the Minister's fault. I want also to thank certain noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lords, Lord Weidenfeld and Lord Bonham-Carter, and, notably, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who have a great deal more experience of foreign policy affairs than I have. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as usual, made an extraordinarily informed and interesting speech.
I was sorry about one thing only—that the ranks of Tuscany were notably absent. I had hoped that someone like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would be inveighing against Europe in general and Germany in particular. But neither did they come to cheer. From time to time we are reminded of the difficulties. I have not dwelt on the negative aspects of Europe; I wanted to concentrate on the positive. But we often face great cultural difficulties in our dealings with Europe. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the cultural problems we face. One of the greatest difficulties is that we were not at any time conquered by Napoleon. As a result, we do not have a Napoleonic code of law; we have our own common law. That is one of the greatest obstacles we face in understanding why our colleagues in Europe think and behave differently, especially in matters relating to personal freedom. It remains for me to say again how grateful I am to noble Lords for having taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Bangladesh: Relief for Cyclone Victims
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Bangladesh made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The Statement is as follows:
"The cyclone which struck Bangladesh on the night of 29th to 30th April was one of the most serious disasters in the region's history. Eye witness accounts have underlined the scale of the tragedy. The whole House shares in our grief and sympathy for the Bangladeshi people.
"Precise assessments have been hindered by the severe damage to communications caused by the cyclone and by continuing bad weather. Neither international donors nor the Bangladesh Government waited for information before starting relief operations. On 30th April we authorised our High Commissioner in Dhaka to spend up to£250,000 on immediate relief needs. This formed part of the£2.5 million initial contribution announced in the House on 2nd May by my honourable friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. On 3rd May I announced a further£2 million, bringing our total support for immediate disaster relief to£4.5 million.
"A major relief effort is now well under way. Fifteen bilateral donors have offered assistance as well as some international organisations. The British response is one of the first and largest. The

1121
physical difficulties involved are massive. Severe damage extends over an area the size of that part of England, south of a line drawn between London and Bristol. Much of it still remains under water. Up to 15 million people may have been affected.
"The port of Chittagong and its equipment has been severely damaged. Rough seas continue to limit access to the islands, which are hardest hit.
"The international relief effort must be co-ordinated and duplication avoided wherever possible. At the request of the Government of Bangladesh the UNDP is acting as co-ordinator of the relief programmes of the international donor community. To assist in this task we are meeting the costs of two UN disaster relief staff.
"British experience with previous disasters in Bangladesh, like the major floods of 1987 and 1988, is that non-governmental organisations, working with the support of the Government of Bangladesh, can operate very effectively providing relief. In the immediate aftermath of the cyclone the priority has been to move stocks of food, clothing, medicines and shelter already in the country to the disaster zone, and to ensure adequate supplies of clean drinking water.
"Of the £3.3 million of bilateral assistance announced last week, some £2.5 million is already being, spent through a number of British NGOs and international agencies on food, shelter, clothing and medicines. A further £50,000 has been allocated for urgent medical supplies and water purification tablets, recommended by our medical adviser based in Dhaka. Staff from our irrigation project have already gone to assist local and British NGCs, who, together with UNICEF, are working to secure cleaner water in the affected areas. Our aid vehicles have also been made available to transport urgently needed supplies.
"We have established an emergency office in Chittagong that is providing on the spot assessments. This will promote co-ordination with other agencies and government officials. It is staffed by a highly experienced British aid official who undertook similar work during the 1988 floods.
"Some honourable Members have asked why we have not sent boats and helicopters. Our High Commissioner in Dhaka is in constant touch with the Bangladesh authorities and other donors. He advises us daily on the most effective uses to which our money can be put, taking into account what is being provided by others. We have just heard that large numbers of boats, including at least 100 collapsible boats provided by Japan following the 1988 foods, are available in Bangladesh. There are also 100 RNLI boats donated by Britain in 1988 being used by the Bangladesh Red Crescent. The High Commissioner does not recommend provision of further boats from the UK. Six Bangladesh navy ships are engaged in getting supplies to off-shore islands. Relief goods are also being transported to Chittagong by rail.
"Helicopters clearly have an important part to play as long as large areas remain inaccessible to surface transport. In the first instance this need can
1122
most effectively be met by countries within the region. India and Pakistan have already provided some helicopters, and I hope that other neighbouring countries may do likewise.
"We are playing a full part in addressing Bangladesh's immediate relief needs as they become known. The co-ordination machinery is in place in Dhaka to try to ensure that all efforts are used to maximum effect and with the minimum duplication. I met the High Commissioner of Bangladesh in London yesterday to discuss priorities.
"I am pleased to announce that we are making available a further £2 million. That brings our total contribution to £6.5 million. The £2 million will cover requests from NGOs for further priority relief supplies and the cost of sending the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, "Fort Grange", equipped with medical facilities and disaster relief stores and two Sea King helicopters to assist with relief operations.
"In the longer term, we have to accept that it will never be possible to protect Bangladesh totally against floods and cyclones. But certain things can be done to mitigate the effects of such natural disasters. The international community is already helping Bangladesh to develop its flood action plan, which includes further measures for cyclone protection. Other rehabilitation and reconstruction needs will be considered once the immediate relief requirements have been met."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for having repeated the Statement. I am afraid that the situation described must represent one of the most sombre pronouncements that the noble Earl has ever made. The tragedy which has once again hit that country has shaken the world and immense numbers of defenceless people are suffering.
We are pleased that the Government have increased the amount of aid that they have pledged from a lower sum to the £6.5 million which the noble Earl mentioned. Britain was the first to contribute and, as he said, is the largest contributor; a fact that we appreciate. We wish to ask a few questions about the effectiveness of the aid we are giving and whether the noble Earl believes that it is relevant to the needs of the Bangladeshi people, both in the short and the long term.
Can the Minister tell me the latest estimates for emergency aid requested by the Bangladeshi Government? Can he indicate the level of international aid pledged to date, or at least the figure pledged by the EC countries? Further, the very nature of the disaster means that a vast amount of land is still under water with pockets of people stranded without assistance. There is an obvious need for boats and helicopters. I am still a little anxious about the number of boats available. Although the noble Earl made clear that already there is a large number of boats, he produced no figures on how many have been given to assist in the emergency operations. He says that the High Commissioner does not recommend the provision of further boats from the United Kingdom. I should be grateful if he could explain what that means.

1123
Clearly helicopters have an important part to play. The noble Earl said that India and Pakistan have provided helicopters, but my information is that only six helicopters are operating in the area. Will the noble Earl be good enough to say how many helicopters are operating? The need for them is immense while the flood waters still exist.
I should particularly like to know about the movement of supplies. I found out today that UNICEF is supplying £5 million—30 tonnes—of medical supplies, vaccines, ORS and cold boxes from Copenhagen. I know that supplies are being moved from Chittagong. Can the noble Earl tell us the state of the railways and whether he feels that such supplies are getting through? If not, the need for more boats and helicopters is imperative.
Can the noble Earl outline the form which British emergency aid to Bangladesh will take during the next weeks? He will agree that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries on earth and least able to cope with such a disaster. I know that the ODA provides what I consider must be the most useful form of aid—Bailey bridges—which can be used both now and at the beginning of any future disasters that may occur. Can the Minister say whether we shall be providing this kind of aid because Bailey bridges are part of the aid project?
I have two questions on the longer term. First, I believe that not long ago the EC carried out a study on cyclone protection in Bangladesh. I should be interested to know what recommendations were made and whether any have been taken up and put into effect.
Although my last question is not directly related to the Statement today, nevertheless it is highly relevant. A concert is being organised this weekend by Mr. Jeffrey Archer which has been highly publicised. In a rather unprecedented way, the Government are contributing a large sum of money to it. I do not argue the rights or wrongs of that, but since the Government are contributing to it, in aid of the Kurdish people, perhaps they will be able to influence the transfer of some of the funds to this new and utterly tragic disaster which has hit the Bangladeshi people. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could respond to the points I have made.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness and thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. None of us can adequately express our horror at this gigantic disaster—gigantic in scale both in the geographical area devastated and the number of people involved. No words can describe it and therefore only by deeds can we express our sorrow at events. I congratulate the noble Earl's right honourable friend on the speed and appropriateness of the aid which has already been delivered.
I wish to know more about the flood action programme to which the Statement refers. There are two aspects to the disaster. First, there are the short-term remedies which can be supplied, to which I shall return. Secondly, in the long run clearly there
1124
must be a programme to prevent such disasters—if not wholly, it is important at least to mitigate their consequences. For that Bangladesh will require international assistance. Any information that the Minister can give the House on the flood action programme will be welcome.
I was interested in the comment on the adequacy of the supply of boats. I can only hope that it is correct. Like the noble Baroness, I feel from the depths of my ignorance that probably what is most needed is helicopters. I was informed that there are currently nine in Bangladesh. Perhaps the Minister will let us know how many there are. We have supplied two, but are those additional or included in the nine? Perhaps we should try to increase the number of helicopters, sending them out now so that they can be used when the weather improves.
The historic links which bind this country to Bangladesh are such that it is quite right that the country should take the lead in supplying aid. I understand that we have so far given?6.5 million, which is more than most countries, as is right and proper. We should bear in mind that we are still only spending 0.3 per cent. of our GDP on this kind of aid and the target is 0.7 per cent. Quite a number of countries are closer to that target than we are. Therefore, we can and should afford to continue the generous policy on which we are set. I look forward to hearing the noble Earl's answers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, gave to the Statement. I wish to join them again in conveying our sincere condolences to Bangladesh and our horror at what has happened.
I wish first to deal with the point on boats raised by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I said when reading out the Statement that there were 100 RNLI boats, but the Statement which the Front Benches opposite received refers to 10 RNLI boats. The latter is the correct figure. The figure I gave was wrong and I apologise sincerely to the House for making such an error.
We believe that there are enough boats in the area. We must not forget that Bangladesh is a low lying country and therefore has a lot of boats of its own. However, some boats are in the wrong place. It is a matter of getting the available boats to the area where they are needed. It is wrong for us in Whitehall to second-guess what is happening on the spot when our advice from our High Commissioner on the spot is that British aid can best be used elsewhere. It would be wrong in the immediate circumstances of the aftermath of the disaster to overrule the High Commissioner. I believe our aid is being used effectively.
That brings me to the point about helicopters. I understand that Bangladesh has about four helicopters of its own. India has supplied three helicopters and Pakistan has supplied two. That makes the total of nine that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to. I also mentioned the two helicopters that were on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship. We hope that other countries in the region will be able to contribute

1125
helicopters. I am sure everyone would agree that it is much quicker to bring a helicopter from a neighbouring country to the disaster zone than try to bring in helicopters from further away.
The noble Baroness asked about the contributions of other states. I hope I may write to her on that point. I have many figures, but they seem to be changing by the hoar. Therefore whatever I say now will quickly be out of date. The latest figures I have apply to the situation yesterday. At that stage the EC had committed 10 million ecu—that is about £6.968 million—and about 15 countries have contributed either money or relief supplies. Saudi Arabia has promised sums for longer term rehabilitation aid.
As regards whether supplies are getting through, we understand that the railway to Chittagong is open. We can consider constructing Bailey bridges. However, our first priority in aid is food, clothing, medicines and shelter. I should say a few words about the flood action plan to which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred. There are two types of flood action plan. There is the plan financed by the EC which is due to be completed later this year. The present indications are that it would recommend a series of structural solutions. Clearly a consultant's further assessment will be particularly valuable in the light of recent events. In addition, we are carrying out four flood action plan assessments. One is to assess the flood control and drainage options in order to reduce and manage flooding in the north-west region. The second consists of a review of existing flood control projects in relation to agricultural, economic, social and environmental impacts to provide guidelines for regional studies. The aim of the third plan is to recommend operation and maintenance procedures for flood action plan projects including the fullest participation by beneficiary and disadvantaged groups. The fourth plan consists of a fisheries study to identify ways of minimising negative impacts of flood action plan protection on flood plain fisheries and fishing communities.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify the number of aircraft that have been sent from this country to help the situation in Bangladesh? I understood him to say there were two aircraft on a ship, but are there any others? Is he satisfied that the total number of aircraft, both fixed wing and helicopters, that we are providing, is adequate? In view of the great efficiency with which the RAF operates in these situations, will my noble friend consider—unless he can say that a fairly substantial number of aircraft have been sent—giving an under -taking that the Government will consider sending more aircraft?
In assessing the total amount of aid which we can give in this case as compared with the other demands upon us from the other disaster areas of the world, will my noble friend bear in mind two factors: first, that we have a long historical connection with Bangladesh—as far as I recall, we do not have such a connection with any of the other disaster areas in the world today—and, secondly, that whereas in the other disaster
1126
areas of the world a good deal of the trouble has been caused by the mismanagement, oppression and misconduct of governments, in the case of Bangladesh the Bangladeshi Government are wholly innocent of any contributory factor to the disaster? This is a straight case of a natural disaster affecting a wholly innocent government and people.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the point my noble friend made about Britain's historical connections with Bangladesh and the natural characteristics of the disaster. Low lying countries such as Bangladesh are threatened by significant rises in sea level. Although the western world has had something to do with the rises in sea level, this has been a natural disaster of huge proportions.
As regards my noble friend's question about aircraft, we have not sent any fixed wing aircraft to Bangladesh. The main priority is the movement of goods in that country by road, rail and boat. Our High Commission has recommended that we should not send fixed wing aircraft to Bangladesh.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, how many helicopters are there?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe I answered that point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. There are nine in Bangladesh at the moment. We shall contribute a further two helicopters when the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship reaches Bangladesh.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the scale of this disaster is largely due to the poverty of the people who have been stricken? The people in the coastal areas, and particularly on the silt islands which have suffered most, went to those areas to seek relief from their poverty. In moving from the interior to the coastal lands, they became particularly vulnerable to such disasters. In view of that fact will the Minister not address himself to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that our general aid programme today has fallen from more than 0.5 per cent. of GNP to 0.3 per cent. of GNP during the past decade?
Further, will the Minister address himself to the matter of shelters on the coastal lands? I understand that the people who survived this horrible disaster were those who managed to get into shelters. However, I also understand that about 5,000 of these shelters are required to protect people in an area where there are bound to be a series—according to all the climatic forecasts—of tidal floods and rises in sea level. I understand that the shelters cost about£40,000 each to build. Will the British Government and their EC partners co-operate in ensuring that after this disaster has receded an immediate building programme will be started to construct more shelters which could save tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives in the years ahead?
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Earl refer to the internal provision of foodstuffs and to the necessary safeguards for the people who are now stricken by this disaster. Is it not the case that there is a great deal of food in other areas of Bangladesh and

1127
that the main challenge as regards food supplies is to find the machines which can transfer food from the interior to the stricken islands? Does that not reinforce the need to use as many helicopters as possible—whole fleets of helicopters—simply to prevent the people on the coastline from starving?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord began by asking what were the causes of the terrible tragedy. I repeat that we shall never be able to protect Bangladesh totally from floods and cyclones. However, certain things can be done, and were done by the Bangladesh authorities on this occasion, in relation to early warning and the movement of people to shelter. Clearly those actions were inadequate and all concerned will want to consider how to improve matters in the future. It is fair to say that some people did not move out of the cyclone's path, despite being encouraged to do so by the Bangladesh Government, because they were unwilling to do so. That is an example of the tremendous pressure on land and crops.
Regarding aid, Bangladesh is currently our third largest bilateral aid programme, receiving about £50 million annually. In addition, the share of aid to Bangladesh from multilateral institutions attributable to the UK amounted to £28.8 million in 1988, which is the last year for which a figure is available.
On the question of shelters, the noble Lord raised an important point. That matter will be looked into by the donors once the Community study is complete, which I said would be towards the end of the year.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said about Bangladesh, having been the only Member of this House in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association group which visited Bangladesh last November. As my noble friend said, Bangladesh suffers from overpopulation and a terrible propensity to natural disasters. When we were there in November Bangladesh was in the middle of a coup—or a change of government, whichever way one wants to put it. There was an indefinite curfew. We had armed sentries outside our bedroom doors at night. All of the various aid agencies left our hotel while we were there. The other members of our party heard shots and troop movements at night. I did not—my room faced the swimming pool and I slept soundly. I should especially like to emphasise the charm and friendliness of the people despite all that activity.
We visited many aid projects—villages, agricultural projects, a fish farm and a tea plantation. We visited some in helicopters—probably some of the six—and some by road. They were definitely basic agricultural roads, and there were not many. We also flew to Chittagong and in a helicopter flew over the area which is now devastated. Even when it was not devastated we seemed to be flying over sea, with water all around.
I even had a chance to hold some of the babies in the hill villages. They were sweet. Travelling out to
1128
Bangladesh my suitcase was weighed down with pounds of wrapped boiled sweets, which I gave to as many children as I could. The smiles on their faces at the small, unaccustomed luxury were heart-tugging. I cannot bear to think of their terrible deprivation now as they face death from famine and disease.
Everyone wants aid from us. Everyone thinks that because we can purchase not only the necessities of life such as bread and clean water but also the luxuries like boiled sweets we are unimaginably rich. Sadly, we are not a bottomless pit. We cannot give all that we should like to everyone. However, the Bangladeshis have a special call on us. Their ties with the British Empire and the Commonwealth are very strong. What is sometimes rare, they all like us. They are all grateful for anything we can do. I thank my noble friend very much for what he has said.
I should also like to say that I have met the High Commissioner, Mr. Colin Imray. I believe that anything that he recommends will be right because he has a very good grasp of the situation, as does his wife. I thank my noble friend for what he has said.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it has been most helpful that my noble friend has been able to recount her visit at first hand. It only serves to underline the disaster. It is all the more poignant as a result of her visit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the recent chapter of international disasters is beginning to show certain basic similarities and that there are lessons to be learnt? Is it not the case that the appropriateness of aid in the first instance depends on information, namely, reconnaissance in the area in which the disaster has taken place; secondly, that its effectiveness is directly proportional in the early days to the speed with which it is delivered; and thirdly, that in those early days it is air and not water or land transport which is most effective, and since landing facilities are not normally available it is helicopters and not fixed wing aircraft which are appropriate? Have we not seen television film of refugees being bombed, sometimes fatally, with food from fixed wing aircraft? Have we not recently seen television film of packages of food—rice or bread—being dropped into contaminated water from fixed wing aircraft?
Does it not follow that for the future we should be prepared to supply helicopter transportation to areas of natural disaster immediately on call? Is there not a role for the military in both reconnaissance and transport which should be reviewed by NATO when considering its future role in out-of-area operations? I hope that the Government will consider again the ground they considered five years ago and the building of treaty relationships with countries likely to be affected so that unarmed troops equipped with appropriate reconnaissance and transport equipment can be taken, like a fire brigade, from the secure and wealthy part of the world in which we live to the impoverished and endangered parts of the world we are speaking of?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are certainly similarities in the results of some of the

1129
tragedies that we have witnessed, although the tragedies have been caused by a variety of events. The current disaster is very much a natural one.
My noble friend has underlined two important points One is that in order for aid to be used to maxim, urn effect the speed with which it is delivered is important. I do not necessarily agree with him that the means that he proposed for delivering aid is the right one. It very much depends on the circumstances. Boats are the important means of communication and of delivering aid in this particular case.
In relation to his second point, reconnaissance of the area affected is very important so that targets can be pinpointed and the aid can be provided as quickly as possible.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl did not answer two of the questions which I put to him. First, does he consider that this disaster, together with the threats to the Kurds and to the even larger number of Africans (27 million), has jerked the Government out of I heir complacency with their aid programme so as to increase the miserable 0.3 per cent. of GNP which they are at present providing in order that the poverty which is the basic cause of this disaster can be tackled and we can play our part in it, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said? Secondly, does he agree that the major challenge in Bangladesh today is to move food from one part of the country to another? Is not the most efficient way of doing that with helicopters? Despite what he has said, is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to provide many more helicopters to move the food from one part of the country to another where people are today dying from starvation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are not complacent about our aid programme. I did not answer the question which the noble Lord put to me earlier because he deliberately sought to widen the debate. In view of earlier proceedings in your Lordships' House I wanted to give as many other noble Lords as possible a chance to speak.
I have already answered questions about helicopters. We are taking the advice of the High Commissioner in the area. The noble Lord does not seem to realise that it is a logistic exercise to get a helicopter from here to places like Bangladesh. He will recall how long it took to get helicopters and other logistic equipment to the Gulf not so long ago.

Engineering
5.40 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon rose to call attention to the status of qualified engineers and of engineering; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to see the assembly of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak on this Motion and am particularly glad that two noble Lords have chosen to make their maiden speeches on this subject today.
I hope that noble Lords will not think that I am too vainglorious if I start by saying that the development
1130
of civilisation since its beginnings has been greatly dependent on the inventiveness, imagination and foresight of engineers. The ancient civilisations of the Middle East depended on feats of irrigation and flood control and a programme of public works of a magnitude sometimes rising to grandiosity. Some years ago a colleague of mine, the late Sir Harold Harding, an eminent tunneller, reminded us that six out of the seven wonders of the ancient world were all the work of structural engineers. When we talk of the ancient wonders, we do not normally think of them as engineering works, but that is what they were.
The physical environment in which we live today is no less the work of engineers. If you look around, virtually everything you see is the work of engineers, with perhaps a certain amount of help from architects and farmers. The infrastructure in which we live and on which we depend is largely the work of engineers. The quality of civilisation is measured by the achievements of its artists, philosophers and men of affairs, but let us not forget that, were it not for engineers, those men and women would still be scratching their ideas on the walls of caves. Yet, for all that, the engineer and his profession are not awarded the status in our society commensurate with the contribution that they make to it.
Can anything be done to remedy that state of affairs? Much of the remedy lies in the hands of the engineers themselves. For a start, they could blow their own trumpet a bit more loudly than they generally do. I hope that I help to do that today. The engineering employers could pay their employees more, thus encouraging clever people into the profession. The industry could do that for itself, but the Government could help. This is not a party matter as governments of all political persuasions have neglected engineering. The Government have a role to play.
That lack of recognition was observed several years ago by the Finniston committee of inquiry into the engineering profession which, as noble Lords will remember, reported to Parliament just over 11 years ago. The committee commissioned a survey among the general public to discover public attitudes to engineers and engineering. The findings of the survey were somewhat miserable. It discovered that nearly one-fifth of respondents expressed complete ignorance about what engineers did. About two-thirds perceived an engineer as someone doing manual work, probably with machinery. Only 13 per cent. associated the title with design or research work at a professional level. When given a definition of a professional engineer, half the sample then perceived the title as denoting someone senior, but only a minority, and then only when prompted, thought that a professional engineer would require a university degree. The committee also noted a misleading and somewhat irritating national tendency to regard engineering as a subordinate branch of science. In that respect noble Lords will have noted that the so-called Science Museum is packed full of engineering and has little science in it.
Most of Finniston's inquiry was aimed at manufacturing industry and not at construction, which is my own line of country. He stressed the

1131
crucial part that manufacturing still plays in the British economy, although a smaller part than it once played. The committee said:
"Engineers were involved in each stage of the manufacturing process, from the technical appraisal of world market opportunities and the translation of those appraisals to the design of products and systems to exploit the opportunities through to the development, manufacture, sale, delivery and service of the products".
That continuous interplay provided the basis of what Finniston called "the engineering dimension". The committee proposed that a statutory engineering authority should be set up, with government funding, aimed at promoting the engineering dimension and correcting the misleading, and often plain wrong, perception of engineering held by the general public, the media, the education establishment and, it goes without saying, Whitehall.
That sensible proposal was not taken up by the Government. Instead, they set up the Engineering Council, a non-statutory body without much in the way of public funding apart from a modest £3 million start-up grant covering its first three years and possibly as much again for a variety of specific purposes since then. In all fairness to the Engineering Council, it tries to blow the engineers' trumpet as well as it can, although sometimes with an uncertain sound. Some industrial concerns, notably British Gas, have joined in too.
Although the Government have given the Engineering Council a certain amount of support and offered support in the form of ministerial encouragement, they could have done more overtly to encourage the profession. Let us compare its treatment with that of another profession, a glamorous, new one which has reached stardom in the past 15 or so years and has obtained the approval and support of Downing Street; namely, design.
Design is a concept of which engineers are well aware. It is right at the centre of the engineering dimension, but, as the structural engineer Ted Happold pointed out in a recent lecture, engineering design is a technological idea as distinct from a visual style or fashion. The newly fashionable design profession is overwhelmingly concerned with style, although it is fair to say not entirely. Nothing infuriates an engineer more than to be told that someone has designed a train when what he has done is chosen the upholstery, had speedlines painted along the outside of the carriages or done a nose job on the 125, as Sir Peter Parker immortally put it. He might be even more irked to learn that the Government not only entertain leading designers to parties at No. 10 but also fund the Design Council to the tune of £6 million a year, so I am told. That is about as much in the last year as the Engineering Council has received since its inception eight or more years ago.
The reason for all that lies deep in the two-culture society which older Members of the House will remember was described by C.P. Snow, later Lord Snow, a generation ago. In one of its dual capacities, design sits happily among the arts and is therefore respectable and enjoys space in the intellectual parts of
1132
the better Sunday newspapers. In its engineering capacity it does not. I believe that polite circles do not realise that engineering design exists.
That blind spot is a feature of British intellectual life. It amused Ted Happold, whom I mentioned a moment ago, to quip that everybody knew Whistler's mother but not too many knew that his father came over from America to learn about railway engineering from George Stephenson. As a matter of fact, Whistler's uncle came over at the same time and both of them went back to engineer the Baltimore-Ohio railway. Happold was making a joke, but to engineers at any rate it is a slightly sour joke.
The same blind spot applies when we turn to the accreditation—I have mentioned this in the House before—of a new building to a designer. It is a fact of modern architectural design that a good deal of it is of a highly engineered nature. Going back in time a little, it is widely thought that Paxton designed the Crystal Palace. But the real hero was Charles Fox, who made it and in fact designed it. Paxton conceived it and deserves the credit for that, but the real hero was an engineer. Noble Lords will recall that the architect Utzon, faced with the difficulties and impracticabilities of realising his scheme for the Sydney Opera House, was encouraged to flee and the design was completed by Ove Arup. So when we talk about the Sydney Opera House, we should say that it is Ove Arup's Sydney Opera House with a little help at an early stage from Utzon.
There is much more I can say along that line and I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to learn that I have some time left in which to say it. Let us turn to some of the more notable buildings of the present day: the Pompidou Centre in Paris, Lloyd's in the City, the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, the new terminal at Stansted which was opened a fortnight or so ago and the proposed new international extension at Waterloo Station, which some of us had the opportunity to see a week or so ago—although that is not quite true because we saw a hole in the ground where the station eventually will be, but we saw pictures of the station. All those structures, which are eminently interesting and highly notable, are works of architecture which would have been impossible without high grade engineering. The juncture of architectural style and design with engineering design is what makes such buildings realisable.
It is an area in which the engineer should be given equal recognition and status with the architect. The engineer should demand it. However, he does not have the opportunity to do so because, as noble Lords will recall, when the copyright Act went through Parliament in 1988, it was proposed that the copyright of a building should be held by the architect and a new right—the moral right to be recognised publicly—was also to be held by the architect. Eventually the Government were persuaded that the engineer should have a place as well. But they were not sufficiently straightforward merely to put into the Act the words "engineer" and "engineering structure". What they did was curious. They changed the word "architect" to "author", to include engineer. They also defined "building" so as to include a "fixed structure". That

1133
was a parliamentary draftsman's way of confusing a fairly straightforward issue. It is true that a building is a structure. But there are a great many structures which are not buildings—the most obvious is a tunnel or a lock gate. That kind of clarity is readily observed by engineers but apparently is hidden from parliamentary draftsmen.
I end by asking the Minister to do two things only. One is to help improve the status of the engineer and engineering. I suggest that he re-reads the Finniston Report and reconsiders the Government's response to it to see how well the Engineering Council meets the propositions laid down by the Finniston committee. One last thing I ask the Minister to do is to insist that his colleagues in government and the Civil Service should read a book called Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. If he is worried about the title, I can tell him that there is not much Zen in it—in fact there is no Zen in it—but there is a good deal which explains the attitude of the engineer and even more important what engineering is all about. That book should be compulsory reading in Whitehall. I know that the Minister has read it but I am quite sure that not too many of his colleagues have done so. I sincerely hope that they will.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Lane of Horsell: My Lords, as a new Member of your Lordships' House I am very conscious of the privilege and of the opportunities provided. I hope that I may be forgiven if, at the moment of embarking on my maiden speech, I am more conscious of feelings of apprehension than of privilege. I am particularly pleased to speak on such a vital subject as the status of engineers and engineering. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for introducing the debate.
I am not an engineer and crave the indulgence of those who have professional expertise in the subject. I am a chartered accountant. I have been in practice for some 40 years throughout which time I have been well aware of the skills and abilities of the qualified enginee r and of engineering. Since in many ways they are synonymous with manufacturing industry, I suppose that engineering has provided a substantial part of my fee income, albeit indirectly, for the whole of that period. I am therefore conscious of the need to maintain and enhance the status of engineers in Britain.
It is unfortunate that as part of our strange, historical, anti-industrial culture, the engineering skills held in such high honour in countries such as France. Germany and Japan do not receive equal esteem in Britain. That state of affairs has arisen despite the good intentions of government, employers and trades unions and the fact that engineering is a vital component of manufacturing industry. Fifty per cent. of British engineering graduates enter the manufacturing sector. Thus, in theory, when manufacturing flourishes, so do engineers. In recent years there has been a sustained growth in manufacturing in Britain in output and exports. Yet I do not believe that in themselves those great
1134
achievements have been reflected in the enhanced status of qualified engineers. Acknowledgment of their importance within industry is essential if their status is to be improved. Equally vital is an acknowledgment of the importance of the engineer within society in general. As a professional but an outside observer, that aspect is of particular interest to me.
As in so many elements of life, everything begins at school. The traditional anti-science basis of much education in Britain has done little for engineering. I hope very much that the new national curriculum, whereby all pupils in maintained schools must study science, mathematics and technology during their entire time at school, will not only ensure that those who wish to pursue a scientific career have a better grounding but also that those who take up non-scientific careers will have a basic understanding of scientific disciplines. In the very long term this should of course promote a greater appreciation of engineers and of the value of science and engineering throughout society.
I have been given some statistics which show that the number of engineering graduates produced by our higher education system is growing fast. It is projected to rise by a third to 28,000 in 1993-94. From a broader spectrum of qualifications in 1986, the percentage of the age group of young people with higher education qualifications in engineering was greater than in either the USA or Germany. That is at least impressive, if only to correct the common impression that we always lag behind our partners in these fields. One can detect a number of initiatives that should provide new and growing opportunities for young people—girls and boys—to embark on careers in science and engineering.
I have little doubt that the standard of our qualified engineers is comparable to that of any of our European partners. But it is not enough simply to provide growing opportunities for the education and training of engineers, vital though such opportunities are. What is necessary, and necessary now, is an across-the-board recognition of the importance of the engineer within our companies.
Starting salaries for engineering graduates in industry tend to be low. Senior salaries at the end of a career also tend to be low. I suspect that there is a general perception that engineering is not a route to the top in industry. Too many science and engineering graduates tend to swap career paths into what they see as easier and faster routes to the top through the disciplines of accountancy, law and merchant banking.
As I said, we need to develop a recognition of the importance of the engineer across the board and on the board. Other leading industrial countries appear to have more engineers at company board level than we do. Clearly British companies need to recognise more fully the importance of engineers. Engineers must learn to apply their skills in a company-wide context. Major innovations have undoubtedly been made in that field and in training generally. The skills revolution is undoubtedly taking place. How best can we secure standards and ensure that those standards

1135
are met in increasing numbers? It is in the world of education that the foundation has to be laid. The status of engineers has never been more important. Enhancement of that qualification and status should flourish as industry, in the centre of our national and economic life, also flourishes.
I thank your Lordships for listening to me so courteously. I am glad to have had the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a matter of great interest to me.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, on behalf of the House I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, on his excellent maiden speech. He is clearly a man who is well-informed on matters involving manufacturing industry. He spoke with great sympathy of the problem of engineers even though he happens to be an accountant. We look forward to contributions that he will no doubt make on this and other subjects in the future. I understand that he is a member of the MCC. Perhaps the best way that I can put it is to say that he has made a splendid first innings and I wish his batting average well in the future.
I too welcome the opportunity in the debate to air an issue which many people regard as being at the root of the so-called British disease. It is the attitude of our society towards manufacturing industry, and, bound up with that, the esteem in which engineers and engineering is held by the educated and influential classes. It is a moot point whether, by winning the Battle of Waterloo, we lost a more important battle: that is, to obtain an education system capable of providing people with the right skills and attitudes for a modern society whose wealth and quality of life is based on a sound manufacturing industry. France's Ecoles Polytechniques were set up primarily to provide military and civil engineers well grounded in mathematics and science to maintain the French empire. They were educated men who had a high status in their society. The Continental engineers from present day polytechnics and from Technische Hochschule are their direct descendants. They enjoy the same privileged reputation.
However, as a result of Waterloo, the Napoleonic influence unfortunately did not cross the Channel. By comparison the British engineers who helped to create the Industrial Revolution in this country—brilliant and ingenious though they were—were men without formal education in science and mathematics. They were not university men. The brilliant Essay on Technology and the Academics by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, describes well the resistance of the English universities to the penetration of science. Some of those men were illiterate.
In spite of the changes that have occurred in our education system, the fact remains that engineers in Britain are regarded in some circles as tradesmen or craftsmen rather than professionals alongside lawyers, doctors—and perhaps I should add accountants. Engineering is still seen as a dull, dirty occupation requiring brawn rather than brain. I wonder how
1136
Wittgenstein, who was trained as an aeronautical engineer, would have regarded that. The depressing fact is that many able young people in the process of choosing careers also have that view and opt for some apparently more glamorous and rewarding career. The idea therefore becomes self-fulfilling.
As a proportion of the population Britain produces fewer engineers than competitor nations. The figure is about two-thirds of graduates at first degree level compared with Germany, and one-half compared with Japan. No doubt the poor performance of manufacturing industry cannot be blamed entirely on the lack of qualified engineers in this country. Obviously poor marketing and bad management must play a part. However, good product design, high quality, high productivity and low cost are factors in which technology plays a key part, and so should properly trained engineers. Improvement in the UK's manufacturing output will not be achieved without the right quality and quantity of engineers.
Paradoxically a recent ACOST report on education and employment states that many of our graduates in industry complain of being bored and not stretched. They feel entirely under-utilised. Frequently they are required to carry out undemanding tasks which could and should be done by technicians and craftsmen. Clearly there is a management problem here. The lack of an infrastructure of trained technicians is perhaps an even greater scandal given the unemployment of youths in the 16 to 18 year-old bracket.
The ACOST report concerns itself with the education of scientists and technologists and the fall in graduate numbers in both categories. It draws attention to the fact that science and technology courses are seen as dull, crammed with facts, lacking excitement and delivered in formal lectures with little opportunity to develop other talents such as communication skills. There seems to be more than a little germ of truth in those accusations. The changes that the report recommends should be considered seriously by all in education.
Part of the problem in engineering and technology is that many teachers have little contact with industry, with small knowledge of the problem solving that goes on in industry and the excitement that that can generate. The interchange of staff between education and industry can help, though difficult logistical problems are involved.
It appears from the report that television, radio and the press are the most influential factors in determining the attitudes of the young towards careers. Unfortunately, they have more influence than parents or teachers. If we are to change the attitudes of the young we must enlist the support of these powerful and persuasive influences. The suggestion of soap operas involving the day-to-day exploits of engineers has been ridiculed. However, I can see no problem in occasionally introducing practitioners in order to show that they eat, drink, procreate and generally misbehave like everyone else and to destroy the present-day dull stereotype.
More importantly we engineers need a champion on the box. We need an enthusiast such as David Bellamy or David Attenborough, or a robust

1137
iconoclast such as John Harvey-Jones. We do not need more programmes such as "Tomorrow's World" or "Horizon", where the audience is presented with scientific marvels or wonder products which create a gap between the viewer and the subject. The viewer needs to become intimately involved in understanding the kinds of problem faced in engineering. They are not merely the technical problems of stresses, strains and structures but the overall problems involved in, for example, building a bridge or developing a new aircraft. There are problems such as the limitation imposed by materials, the legal and social requirements and the ways of dealing with pollution effects. In the human dimension there is also the effect of public reaction. Youth often holds technology responsible for the damage done to the environment. While that may appear to be unfair to industrialists and technologists since the public as customer demanded the goods, it is only by better and different technology that we can bring about improvements.
In devising a solution the well-rounded engineer must be alive to all those factors. In some degree they may be incompatible. There are no perfect solutions; compromises must be made. The situation is more akin to that which confronts his or her professional colleagues in the law and in medicine than that of the pure scientist, whose problems are generally more clearly defined. For an engineer satisfaction and excitement is achieved by obtaining an effective and economic solution to a problem. If the sense of excitement and worth can be passed down we shall be a long way down the road towards recruiting young men and women to a great profession that can and must influence the quality of life for us all.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Amwell: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak for the first time in your Lordships' Chamber. I ask for the indulgence of the House for the few words that I have to say.
I am of course greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for initiating this important debate. It seems to be a truism that when two or more engineers are gathered together sooner rather than later the discussion will turn to bemoaning their low status in this country. The debate gives us an official opportunity to do so and as a practising chartered civil engineer I wish to take advantage of it. Most of my comments will be based on my experience in civil engineering but they hold true in most other aspects of engineering.
It is always a slightly unnerving experience for a qualified British engineer to go to other countries in Europe or in the third world and to find that he is treated as someone rather special just because he is an engineer. That is an experience that he never has at home. What therefore is this abstract thing called status? The Oxford dictionary presents a problem for it contains two definitions which appear in the context of today's debate to be mutually contradictory. The first is "relative importance" and the second is "social position".
If relative importance was the criterion the status of qualified engineers and engineering would be of the
1138
highest because without them modern civilisation as we know it today would not be possible. Perhaps I may take this Chamber as an example—I should be speaking much louder because there would be no amplification, no television and no electric light. We should to all intents and purposes be back in the 17th century. Every development since then necessary for a modern civilisation has been and continues to be provided by engineers. One has only to look at the situation in Kuwait, or worse still in Iraq, to see what deprivation is brought about by a complete breakdown in the engineering infrastructure.
Therefore, as regards the criterion of relative importance, most if not all other professions would bow to engineering. This is of course what happens in other more successful nations such as Germany and Japan but it does not happen here.
On the other hand, social position is what every engineer believes he lacks relative to most of his fellow professionals. That definition is the crux of today's debate. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has identified the British perception of an engineer as an artisan who comes to mend the tap, the car or the telly. The preface "qualified" or "chartered" engineer does not change the image.
Yet the chartered engineer, like most professionals today, must be a graduate and undertake a lengthy post-graduate training in order to achieve chartered status. The average period to become a chartered civil engineer, including obtaining a degree, is nine years. That is indeed longer than is the case in most other professions. What reward can an engineer expect from society for all this hard work? Certainly no social position and in financial terms a very bleak outlook indeed.
On graduating his salary may be close to or even slightly above that of other graduates. But we need to look further into the future to obtain a better perspective. Seven years after graduation a graduate in the financial sector can expect to be earning 60 per cent. above the average of all graduates of his age; a lawyer 20 per cent more; an accountant 15 per cent. more. However, a civil engineer will be earning 4 per cent. less than the average graduate. That is a position beaten only by teachers and social workers.
Does any of this matter? Does it matter that one relatively privileged professional group lacks status compared to other professionals? Yes, I am certain that it does. Ours is a country that lives and exports on the quality of its engineering products. Those products are brought into being by the design skills of professional engineers. Without adequate numbers of those engineers the ability in this country to create properly designed, well engineered, competitively priced products will progressively diminish. I do not believe that anyone would disagree that we have seen that ability diminish during the past 20 years; some would say during the past century.
But the number and quality of youngsters hoping to become qualified engineers is in decline relative to the number of graduates in other areas. In 1988 engineering firms outside the construction sector took in 20 per cent. of all graduates but reported a shortfall in their requirements of a further 20 per cent. The

1139
construction sector took in just 8 per cent. but reported a shortfall of a staggering 24 per cent. Graduates either were not available or could not be persuaded to come into engineering. According to the laws of supply and demand such a shortfall should produce an increase in the number of engineering students. However, I understand that while it is rising slightly, it is not rising fast enough to meet the shortfall in demand. Teachers and parents seem to continue to believe that engineering is poorly paid and of low overall reward.
The result is a failure to attract post A-level students on to engineering courses and, on graduation, there is a loss of the cream of engineering graduates from their natural home in engineering into other professions. There is no doubt that part of the problem can and should be laid at the door of the engineering profession for failing to promote more widely the value of what it does. Also, it is part of a wider malaise in Britain that seems to me deliberately to undervalue the work done by those who make things.
I have no instant solutions as to how that balance may be redressed. However, solutions must be found if we are to avoid slipping further behind the rest of Europe in our engineering base and if we are to remain an economic force in Europe in the 21st century. I thank your Lordships for listening to me on this difficult occasion but fortunately I am speaking on a subject in which I have a close personal interest.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege on behalf of the whole House to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, on his maiden speech. I must confess that I had not had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord before today but I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that the noble Lord's speech demonstrates very clearly his knowledge and experience of these matters. Also, it was a good trailer for the many contributions which I hope that the noble Lord will make in the future. It is a tradition of our Cross-Benches that they represent a considerable degree of expertise in all sorts of different subjects. The noble Lord is a very welcome addition to that great range of knowledge.
It is the practice in your Lordships' House that a maiden speaker should be congratulated only by the speaker immediately following him. However, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I express a few words of appreciation for the maiden speech of my noble friend and kinsman Lord Lane of Horsell. I am delighted to have my noble friend alongside me if only because I am married to his daughter. I look forward to my noble friend's contributions in the future.
The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for raising this important matter. I must start by declaring an interest as a director of a company involved in engineering and also as president of METCOM which is a group of trade associations within this sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and indeed those noble Lords who spoke after him have referred
1140
to the importance of engineering which is, I suppose, self-evident. After all engineering represents nigh on 10 per cent. of our gross domestic product and plays an absolutely crucial role in many of our national activities as I discovered, if I did not appreciate it already, when I served as Minister for Defence Procurement in the Ministry of Defence. Imagine defence procurement without engineering!
That percentage of GDP—about 10 per cent—is historically rather low. In earlier times it was much higher. I suspect that some of the decline from those historically high levels of engineering activity as a proportion of the whole was inevitable and perhaps not altogether a bad thing. Nevertheless, I believe we should now be thinking of ways to inject new life into the sector. That is why I welcome today's debate.
Clearly, training will play a critical role. I warmly endorse all the recent training initiatives which the Government have taken. Governments do not have a magic wand and, less still, unlimited funds. I believe that the industry, teaching and training establishments and, indeed, engineers and potential engineers must try to do more.
First, I believe that the industry itself can help to raise the status of its qualified engineers, no doubt by paying them more, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and my noble friend Lord Lane said, but equally importantly, by seeking to fill middle and senior level managerial posts from the ranks of those with relevant qualifications. If the term "relevant qualifications" is to include engineering qualifications, then engineering training should include some instruction in management skills. Increasingly, I hope that it will.
One way the Government could help in a process to which I know they attach importance would be by the creation of, for example, a Queen's Award for engineering excellence. There are already several important Queen's Awards which are much sought after and highly prized. A new award in this sphere would be a source of encouragement and inspiration. I believe that there is already a Queen's Award for technological achievement which is not quite the same. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is nodding her head. She will know what I am talking about because I believe I am right in saying that when she was Lord Lieutenant of London she would have presented many such awards.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the role of the universities and polytechnics. The enormous degree of freedom which they enjoy in spending the large sums of public money placed at their disposal has not served the taxpayer very well. While more and more of our young people enter those establishments—and rightly so—fewer and fewer are emerging with the qualifications which our nation so badly needs. Should not more of the funding provided for the purposes of higher education be earmarked from the start for courses in the disciplines which we all so badly need? Why is it so improper for universities to say to potential undergraduates, "You may come here to read an engineering subject but not, for example,

1141
the history of sociology"? Nobody admires sociological historians more than I do, but as a nation we do not need as many of them as we do engineers.
I shall put that another way. Would it not be possible to say to universities and polytechnics that they should ensure that perhaps 10 per cent of their graduates have studied subjects of direct relevance to manufacturing industry which, after all, creates at least the same percentage of our national wealth and sometimes a much greater percentage of university funding?
I recognise that academic freedom is an article of faith which we in this House especially hold dear. However, surely we are entitled to ask the defenders of the present system within academia what steps they propose to take to ensure that their institutions begin to serve the country perhaps rather better than has been the case recently. Mere calls for more money will not do.
Finally, I turn to engineers and potential engineers. I hope that our young people will not be easily seduced by the apparent easy wealth to be derived from, say, a career in front of a video screen which, as recent history has shown, is not always all that it is cracked up to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said, engineers should blow their own trumpets rather more, and here the professional bodies have a role to play.
The long term future of our economy depends crucially on the health of our manufacturing industry within which engineering plays a vital part. Of course the Government can help but in the end, as Charles I said before his execution:
"Put not your trust in princes for in them there is no salvation".
No! The key to progress in this matter lies within the industry itself and within the educational and training establishments. It depends upon the enthusiasm and dedication of those who can restore Great Britain to its rightful place as a major world producer.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am glad that this debate has involved participation by a number of noble Lords who are not engineers. It is very much up to us to do our best to cure the inferiority complex that I detect in some of my engineering friends. I hope to do that by referring to one engineer in particular.
The debate is timely. Within the past few weeks Gordon Eddie, a distinguished engineer, died. He worked in the Torry research station as an engineer. Much of the development in regard to fishing trawlers and freezing was brought about through his efforts. He happened to be a member of my team in the Falklands. I there discovered what one may call the cultural background of an engineer.
Gordon Eddie had a capacity to understand issues which the rest of us did not naturally understand. Matters arose on which we needed his kind of mind. At an early stage he said that it was time he went to examine the freezer which was on one of the islands in the Falklands. He had to swim to reach it. When he arrived he found that it was about to blow up. His help in that incident was a benefit we had not foreseen.
1142
He was of value also when we examined the airfield and considered the possibility of its taking long-range aircraft. If that had been possible, the Falklands war might have been avoided. His understanding of the LCN—the bearing quality of the runway—was fundamental. That cultural background—the engineer's background and understanding—is of great value to the community today.
It is difficult to say to what that background is due. I believe the engineer needs to he much more bold, proud and confident of his abilities. He deals in practicalities. As one engineer explained to me, he deals in three dimensions. He must plan. Finally, he is essentially concerned with making the project work. No scientist could work successfully without the engineer putting into effect his work.
I hope noble Lords, and particularly those who are engineers, will not feel at a disadvantage alongside those who work in the City. Their community value is much greater to the public at large. Therefore I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howie on introducing this important debate.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Crook: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for introducing the debate this evening. I am a chartered civil engineer and proud to be one even if it means that from time to time I dirty my hands in carrying out my work; that is not important.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, referred to the fact that few people know what an engineer is. Several speakers drew attention to the common misunderstanding that they repair washing machines and motor cars. Even members of my family appear to be under that misconception. It is part of our problem that anyone in this country may call themselves an engineer. Somehow or other the honourable appellation of mechanic is no longer fashionable. We do not see mechanics in garages any more; it is engineers who come to fix our cars. I do not know why that is. There is nothing wrong with being a mechanic. In Victorian days the mechanics' institutes were very much the educators of a large number of our technological population.
Be that as it may, it must be borne in mind that in many continental countries the term "engineer" is reserved for what we in this country call a professional or a qualified engineer in the terms of the Motion before us. It is a strange fact that architects have reserved their appellation in a way that engineers have not. I do not know how that came about, but one must qualify as an architect before one may use that description.
Much has been said about the relative remuneration of engineers and that of other professional people. Perhaps we should bear in mind that in only recent history engineers tended to be drawn from a class that was already well endowed with social status; they entered engineering—certainly in the branch of civil engineering that I entered—as a way of exerting a useful and constructive influence on the life of the country. As such, when one became an entrant into a

1143
firm of consulting engineers one did not expect to be paid. One's parents tended to pay for one's two-year or so apprenticeship.
A rueful story is told in our profession of one gentleman who, after two-and-a-half years, approached the boss and asked whether he could have a salary. He was told that the boss man deprecated the mercenary attitude creeping into young engineers; whereupon the young man fled without a salary for yet another few months. I was brought up in the aftermath of that era. Engineers were not supposed to be paid very much. We were told that we had job satisfaction and that that was as much as anyone could reasonably expect. The realities of buying groceries were not considered.
Engineers are much to blame for the situation in which they find themselves. One of the problems is that engineering is far too interesting, despite the gloomy picture that may be painted by some people of the apparently boring nature of what we do. I have a vivid memory of conducting some experiments on a working model of a dam. A small boy whom I had brought to see it stood with his mouth open in awe and said, "Do they pay you as well?" I had to assure him that in fact they did.
We in our profession do not help ourselves. We are too interested in what we do and we are content, to some extent, to take a subordinate role in the affairs of industry in return for a quiet life and the opportunity to do the things we really find interesting. That is not the way in which one progresses in this world. However, it certainly is an interesting occupation. Colleagues of mine have done fascinating things such as exploring the Antarctic or mapping rivers in Africa that had never been explored. That is fine, but one becomes hooked on that and expects to spend the rest of one's life doing such things and not progressing further.
We are not helped by our education. I took a three-year engineering course. There is much to learn in engineering. We must learn a lot of technology. At no time was it even hinted that we might find ourselves administering large enterprises. Someone else did that. Our job was to be good technicians and to ease the work in progress. We had no training whatever in any part of business administration. We were left to pick that up for ourselves as our careers proceeded. Therefore, when we got older we merely visited on our subordinates the injustices that had earlier been visited on us. That is no basis on which to be in a position to administer any sizeable organisation, but it is one in which so many of us find ourselves.
My son is a mining engineer. He has had the wit and support to spend two years taking a Master's degree in business administration. He had reached a ceiling in engineering. He is a very good engineer but he needed more. He now has that additional qualification and he is going way ahead—and good luck to him. It is people who have a combination of knowing how things work mechanically and knowing how industry should work who ought to be able to play a major part in making the industries of this country more efficient. We rely too much on
1144
administrators being in a totally detached occupation where it is considered almost to be wrong to know how you make the product that is being manufactured. That situation must end for the benefit of the whole community. Perhaps we can look forward to engineers receiving a longer and more broadly-based education in order that they may carry out these tasks in the future.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I hope that the House will not mind that my name is not on the list of speakers, but at least one speaker has dropped out and there is some time available. I wish to add my support to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I am not an engineer, but I admire engineers in their occupation and what they bring to the various parts of British industry. I wish to mention two matters, one from the past and the other from the recent past. My only connection with engineering is that my wife is a great, great grand-daughter of I. K. Brunel. I am reminded of the versatility of engineers at the beginning of the last century. His father, Sir Marc Brunel, has his portrait in the Committee corridor of this House. He started by making a tunnel under the Thames at Rotherhithe through which trains are still running.
The versatility of British engineers at that time was really impressive. I was on the committee which brought the "Great Britain" back from the Falkland Islands in the summer of 1970. When she arrived off Avonmouth they wanted a descendant of I. K. to be there. Because of that, immediately after the election, instead of doing what I should have done and at once taking over a department, I and my wife went, with the Prime Minister's agreement, to greet the great ship as she came into Avonmouth.
Engineers in this country did have great panache. I wish that could be revived. I was reminded on that journey that I was travelling along a railway which had been laid out by I. K. I travelled through Box Tunnel, which had been built by him; I saw the Clifton bridge, which had been designed by him, and then I saw one of his great ships. His versatility was incredible. The part played by the engineers of the 1840s was mentioned by Lord Clarke in his television programme "Civilisation". I. K. was described by him as a romantic imperialist. I hope that we shall see the days of British engineers coming back into the media and into the romantic sphere as well as the hard professional side of their lives.
I now come to more modern times and to my late friend Sir Monty Finniston. After a very long and successful career in business, in which he ended up as the head of British Steel, he gave his time in semi-retirement to championing the profession and status of engineers in this country. He made an impressive start in a way which I hope will continue. What has been said in this debate in forwarding the role of engineers in our society I hope will continue to be supported by Parliament. I too am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, caused this debate to take place. I join with those who wish that engineers may be allowed not only to gain their training and

1145
advance in their profession but also to play a role which will become more and more important in British life.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon for bringing this extremely important matter before your Lordships. I congratulate the two maiden speakers. Both of them are very distinguished: one is an accountant, the other a chartered engineer. They put more or less the same point of view although from slightly different angles. I was particularly glad to see my noble friend Lord Shackleton back in his place and speaking with the firm voice we are accustomed to. He encouraged engineers, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who spoke after him, to blow their own trumpet more vigorously. They should not be the shy flowers that they sometimes are.
There is no need to stress the importance of the subject. All noble Lords will be aware of it. The future of British industry and, to a certain extent, the future of our body politic, depends on having a strong manufacturing industry and within it a strong engineering component. Whether we speak about engineers or engineering—the people or the activity—I believe that all noble Lords are in agreement that both are of supreme importance if we are to prosper as a community.
As regards engineers, the status and skills required are part of the overall problem of the balance of rewards in society. Those rewards can be measured in both monetary terms and in the degree of esteem accorded to engineers. We have to think about them. As regards engineering activity, there is no doubt, as my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon said, that we would not have had any major achievements behind us or, we hope, in front of us, were it not for the engineering industry.
It is slightly sad for those of us who believe in increasing employment to see that, despite rapidly increasing unemployment, there is still a shortage of skilled engineers in industry. The CBI estimates that a quarter of manufacturing companies are short of graduate engineers. There are still pockets of craft shortages. The fall in engineering employment throughout the United Kingdom between 1978 and 1990, as reported by the Engineering Industry Training Board, is shown by the figures. Total engineering employment fell by about 36 per cent.; craft jobs' employment by 44 per cent.; electrical engineering employment by 44 per cent.; electronic engineering employment by 11 per cent.; instrument engineering employment by 26 per cent.; and machine tool engineering employment by 59 per cent. That is not a very happy story for our engineering industry.
However, there has clearly been a shift in the pattern of employment. Certainly, over the past few years, engineering in its broadest sense has employed more graduates than it did 10 years ago. We have to accept that the level of expertise and skill in the engineering industry is increasing, as it should as technology engineering becomes more sophisticated.
1146
The first question that I put to your Lordships is: what is our record in producing qualified engineers? How does it compare with other countries? If it compares unfavourably, why is that so? The noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, devoted much of his speech to that matter, as did other noble Lords.
The Japanese output of graduate engineers is two and a half times higher per head of population than the British output. For engineering graduates in mechanical engineering it is 3:1 in their favour; in chemical engineering, 5:1; and in production engineering it is 9:1. The ratio of applications for engineering places in universities is 4.7:1 in Japan's favour. The same is true of craft and technician levels. We are well behind the rest of Europe, but the Japanese figures show that if we are to catch up with their performance in productivity we have to produce more qualified engineers.
There may be disputes about the figures, as there always are, and about how many graduate engineers are produced. The Government will quote figures from the Employment Gazette, no doubt saying that we are doing very well, which will be challenged by the Engineering Council which disagrees and says that we are doing badly. But the summary I would suggest is that we have not had a bad record over the past few years in doctorates, although our record is not so good in masters degrees and first degrees. During the same period France has doubled—and is planning to double again—the number of qualified engineers coming out of universities. So even if our record is better than it was, it is still not good enough for the future.
Time moves on, and we cannot just talk about quantity. We have to consider quality as well. Whereas in the past, whatever the figures may be, we could argue that the main source of concern in the United Kingdom was the low numbers of university-trained engineers—and to some extent I would argue that it still is—the future concern in comparison with Europe must be as much with the quality of engineers coming out of our universities and polytechnics as with the quantity. It must also be directed towards retraining those who take their degrees but who need further training later in their careers. That applies to every profession. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, will recognise that that is as true in engineering as it is in accountancy.
That brings me neatly to my noble friend's Motion about the status of engineers, which a number of noble Lords have discussed. What is the underlying problem? It would be idle to pretend that the problem is new; it has dogged the United Kingdom ever since the great days of the last century, described by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when engineers enjoyed a very high status.
The Finniston Report, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, included a survey, from which my noble friend Lord Howie quoted, showing that 13 per cent. only of the public associated the word "engineer" with design or research work at a professional level. There are fears that young people are being put off even before they get to secondary

1147
school. Manufacturers have recently taken part in a scheme to bring primary school children into factories and workshops, and there has been another scheme to reach secondary school teachers. Those are very new schemes but they should really have been in operation for a long time. Engineering and manufacturing has not sold itself well to young people. They are not persuaded that it is a good and satisfactory career. Engineering is believed to be dirty, ugly and unglamorous, with low salaries and low status. That is the perception that young people have about engineering as a career.
Even when young people go to university and study engineering they still apparently have a low motivation. As some noble Lords have remarked, they tend to go into the City of London to become analysts rather than into industry. A recent survey showed that 5,000 only out of 14,000 engineering graduates intended to go into engineering. That may be due to pay. As the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, said in his maiden speech, there is no doubt that engineers lag behind other professions in pay. For example, 63 per cent.of chartered engineers earned less than£25,000 in 1988-89. That is not a very substantial amount for a qualified engineer. It is possible to earn much more as a junior foreign exchange dealer in the City.
Therefore, given that there is an underlying problem and given that the engineering sector and the Engineering Council have not sold themselves, one must ask what are the answers? Are there any answers?
There is one point on which I would take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The Government have a much greater responsibility than he implied. I am not suggesting that he said the Government had no responsibility, but I would argue that they have a major responsibility. We must start with Finniston. As my noble friend Lord Howie said, Finniston made a series of detailed recommendations for a new qualification structure, and for an engineering authority to oversee a national policy for standards and quality. Not much of that has been implemented. There are those who would argue that that is too engineer-dominated, but I think we should look at it again.
There is also bias against mathematics and science in schools. It may be that the new national curriculum will help to correct that, but many people who are much more qualified than I am criticise the bottleneck of A-levels which forces people to specialise away from those disciplines. I include in those critics the Engineering Council and the Secondary Heads Association.
As many nobles Lords have pointed out, we should be prepared to raise the status of engineers by promoting them to senior management positions. There is no reason why engineers should not become managers, administrators and directors in the same way as others do. That happens in German and Japanese companies, which do not seem to suffer. Possibly one should argue for higher pay. I should also argue for encouraging more women to come into engineering, which is still seen very much as a male
1148
bastion. The number of women on engineering degree courses rose from 7 per cent. in 1984 to nearly 12 per cent. in 1989, partly as a result of the women in science and engineering campaign of the Engineering Council. There are many opportunities which the Government must seize.
Those are some of the answers. Nevertheless, we have to come back to what Government can do to help. I should like to quote something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, the chairman of Rolls-Royce, when he was chairman of the Engineering Council. He said:
"Normal market forces will not work to make up the severe shortfall and provide the skills base needed by modern industry and commerce".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. It is wrong to expect normal market forces simply to provide what we are all hoping and expecting to happen. Market forces must be helped by government. That is the main message that I would give to your Lordships from this Dispatch Box.
There are several ways in which government can help. We in the Labour Party have proposed the setting up of technology trusts which would improve the technological level of small and medium size engineering firms. We should like to see the application of new generations of automation in small and medium size firms which would raise the skills level of those employed and also the productivity inside firms. In our view there is a long way to go. Government must take the lead in upgrading, automating and linking those islands of automation together geographically.
We must also take much more seriously the idea of an Open University for engineers. The Open University, as the House will remember, was one of the great inventions of the Government of 1964-70. We can now use technology of all sorts—for example, satellite technology. We can deliver through that technology to the workplace the methods of updating skills as well as full courses up to degree level so that every firm in the country becomes part of a great university. That is happening in the United States. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has started a form of general university education in firms in the state of Massachusetts and outside. It is also being started in Stanford by Stanford Research in California and in Texas. There is no reason at all why we should not learn from those examples. Those are successful models. They form groups of companies associated with a university or research institute. We can base them on colleges of further education, if that is appropriate for us. We should be using all these methods to encourage engineering to become a much more respectable, much more developed and much more technologically sophisticated in perception career for people.
I do not wish to take up too much time. I wish to reiterate and re-endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said. Although I disagree with him on a number of matters, particularly the role of government, I do believe that government, the engineering industry and engineers themselves, must think imaginatively if we are to address seriously the problems raised by my noble friend Lord Howie. A

1149
healthy engineering industry—mechanical or electronic—lies at the heart of any policy to improve national productivity across the whole economy. We should do well to remember that. Engineering is still far too frequently identified in the public mind with metal bashing. We must do something to correct that. The engineering of tomorrow will be in automated systems; robots, data processing and sophisticated material such as that. It is that image that has to be promoted and promoted actively. It is only the Government who have the capability to do it. We must think long term. The Government cannot collectively wash their hands of the subject. On the day when Rolls-Royce has announced 3,000 job losses it is a message that I believe the Minister would do well to heed.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are doubly blessed today by the debate brought to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. We are doubly blessed because it is a subject of great interest as well as of import: doubly blessed because we have had the pleasure—I believe for all of us—of two superb maiden speeches.
We have had the pleasure of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lane of Horsell, with a professional career outside engineering, viewing with enthusiasm and sympathy what he sees as some of the problems. I enjoyed his speech greatly. I very much hope that it will be only a short time before he returns to contribute further to debates in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, rightly reminded us all that had it not been for the contribution of the engineers we should be in need of some form of prescriptive medicine to maintain our voice boxes. Then there is electric light that allows the Minister to read from his brief at the Dispatch Box. More to the point, he pointed out that the cure for the black clouds over Kuwait will above all be engineering solutions. I look forward to further contributions from the noble Lord.
I feel I should declare a humble interest as an honorary fellow of the Society of Engineers. But I declare a life-long enthusiasm for British engineering ability. I also declare an interest through the hero of my boyhood and adult life, I. K. Brunel.
It may be an unfortunate comparison, but when the great tunnel was dug under the Thames both father and son gave a huge banquet in the tunnel to celebrate its construction. I wonder whether in 1993 a great banquet will be given under the Channel in order to celebrate an equally stupendous achievement of engineering. It is worth remembering that when R. J. Mitchell was chief designer at Supermarine before the war the position was considered of sufficient importance for him to have a chauffeur driven Rolls-Royce to come to work in every day. I wonder how many chief designers in 1991 are driven to work in that way?
Individuals have to make choices whether to study to higher education entry level, which subjects to take, whether to enter the higher education system at all and which course to follow. Having made those choices
1150
they will make decisions about employment and whether to stay with the profession of their choice. In order to make wise decisions they must understand the implications of those choices, together with maintaining the interest and enthusiasm for their subject. There is no doubt that many people outside of the engineering profession are still uncertain about the nature and range of work involved in engineering, together with career prospects, potential rewards and status.
Raising the status of engineers is primarily a matter for the engineering profession itself. Employers need to provide factual information on what the work of the well qualified engineer demands. They need to provide career progression, both in technical and managerial roles, and recognise this with appropriate pay differentials throughout the career that follows. They must ensure that skills are used to greatest advantage, with divisions between engineers and technicians. Anecdotal evidence of qualified engineers mis-employed as technicians does no service to recruitment to the profession. Employers need to demonstrate that engineering compares well with other career options.
There is a cultural change needed covering the spectrum from home to company. Government and the engineering profession are pursuing a course to see this come about. I shall give an example of a very recent co-operative activity that develops this theme. The Department of Education, the DTI, the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Fellowship of Engineering provided financial support for a pilot series of three BBC programmes on Science and Technology, "The New Explorers". The aim of these programmes, broadcast in February 1991, was to present science and technology research and the strategies that lie behind it to a wider audience.
Another example of seeking to bring about this cultural change is the "Women into Science and Engineering" campaign which is designed to encourage more girls and women to consider careers in science and engineering. This point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
There is considerable evidence that the structure of teaching and learning embodied in the GCSE balanced science approach is motivating more young people to see themselves as scientists. This, combined with the requirement that all young people should study science and technology within the national curriculum to the age of 16, augurs well for attracting people into the engineering profession.
The status of the engineer is, I freely admit, partly dictated by salary levels. The Engineering Council's 1989 survey shows that increases in engineering salaries were at a rate above the retail prices index. In contrast to this, figures from the Engineers' and Managers' Association report, An Engineering Vacuum, of February 1990 indicate that the salaries do not always compare favourably with other professions. The evidence may be incomplete, and salary levels are not of course uniform across employers. But if employers truly now recognise that engineering

1151
skills in industry need to be enhanced, it is for employers to consider the relative importance of those salary levels.
There are many UK bodies and institutions active in working to enhance the image of technology and science. Notable among them is the Engineering Council. The Engineering Council has as one of its objectives to promote the status and practice of engineering generally with a view to improving competitiveness. It was set up in 1981 following Sir Monty Finniston's committee of inquiry into the engineering profession. The form that this body took was a result of the industry's own preferences. The Government also supported it with initial pump-priming of some£3 million over three years as grant in aid.
On a personal note, the death of Sir Monty Finniston in the early part of this year was a sad loss to the United Kingdom and to the engineering profession in particular. It was his drive and enthusiasm which ensured that the committee of inquiry that was set up in December 1977 under his chairmanship published its report entitled Engineering Our Future in January 1980. Indeed that title is perhaps a fitting tribute to the man himself, who had done so much for engineering and engineers.
The Engineering Council enjoys the continuing support and co-operation of the engineering profession, and it is now self-supporting as an institution. Even so, with about 50 separate engineering institutions in the UK, there is still considerable opportunity for joint activities under the auspices of the council. This is necessary in order to avoid a fragmented approach to meeting the profession's needs.
The Engineering Council has a range of continuing activities. It maintains and develops the register for chartered engineers, incorporated engineers and engineering technicians. It operates through education and training initiatives to ensure industry's needs are met. It runs schemes, seminars and conferences to promote the career image of the engineering profession. The Government provide specific financial assistance for some of this important work; for example, the neighbourhood engineers scheme. The neighbourhood engineers scheme aims to secure closer links between engineers and secondary schools to improve the understanding of the role of engineers by school children, their parents and teachers. The scheme does this by attaching four or five local engineers to every secondary school in the country. It is amazing how the arrival of a young female engineer in a school can change perceptions.
Government support, both past and present, reflects the importance we attach to the engineering profession. It is vital to the UK economy and particularly to manufacturing industry.
Sufficient numbers of engineers are required if British business is to hold its own in what is an increasingly competitive international market oriented world. Engineers must be well educated and technically skilled. They must maintain their skills throughout their careers even though the subject is
1152
increasingly complex and changes are happening all the time. The Government's policy is to ensure that education and training remain relevant to the needs of the economy and that all those involved—government, employers, training providers and individuals—should play their part in developing the skill of the nation.
Perhaps a most recent pertinent example here is the tax concessions to individuals who are financing their own training towards a recognised qualification. This issue was raised by both the Engineering Council and the Engineering Employers Federation, among others, and has been acted upon. Indeed, my department's objectives, revised and publicised last week to take us into the 1990s, include listening to the concerns of business and ensuring that they are taken into account in the development of government policies, including education and training.
The DTI's objectives also include encouraging the spread of technical skills and closer links between business and the science base. We are already active on several fronts in this area. One example of a very successful partnership between academia and industry is the teaching company scheme, where DTI is the major sponsor. This scheme encourages young, able graduates to apply and develop their skills in industry under academic supervision and gives them an early opportunity to influence company growth and technology transfer. It is reassuring to note that out of more than 380 current teaching company programmes, 82 per cent. are in manufacturing industry. Fifty-five per cent. are in small and medium sized enterprises which can provide an excellent first training ground for the young engineer who wants to make a success of an industrial career.
Universities, polytechnics and colleges are autonomous in academic matters, but employers, professional institutions and grant awarding bodies can influence degree content. In responding to such expressions of demand, institutions will be given an incentive to recruit additional students in the more expensive engineering subjects by the shift from the flat rate to differentiated tuition fees from Autumn 1991, which I hope will go some way to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
In response to industry's need for more broader based engineers, the Department of Trade and Industry is supporting the Engineering Council's integrated engineering degree programme to develop multidisciplined engineering degree courses. Stimulation of innovation is another of the department's objectives. Innovation is a major source of competitiveness and engineers have a crucial role to play in this important area. In this context manufacturing industry and the construction industry need qualified, flexible professional engineers. They are needed to implement a company's advanced manufacturing technology strategy, to push forward its programme of product innovation and improvements and to contribute a technical perspective to a company's successful business plans. Some engineers will develop wider business skills. We would encourage companies to invest in such people, to develop these skills and to consider them on merit for

1153
senior positions, a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Crook and Lord Trefgarne. The message of the DTI's "Managing into the 90s" campaign is this: there has to be a broader spectrum and business must be made accessible to engineers for the further advancement of their careers.
Many of the world's most competitive companies are now breaking down the artificial barriers between company departments and functions, order processing and production, purchasing and design, design and manufacture and despatch and service. Engineers and engineering have a vital role to play here and can be a key to a company developing and implementing a competitive strategy based on integrating its separate departments into project teams.
Many of the world's most successful manufacturing countries have more engineers at board level than we do. As part of encouraging UK companies to look at their competitors, we want more of them to examine that issue to see what lessons we can learn. But it must not and cannot happen by government decree. British engineers must earn their right to a position at the boardroom table just as they do elsewhere. Boards must recognise the importance of engineering and engineers must recognise the importance of setting their engineering skills within a business context.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to the status of engineers. At one point he seemed to indicate that we might have been better off in terms of the academic recognition that would have been applied to engineers had Napoleon crossed the Channel. That would be something for the House as a whole to decide rather than the DTI spokesman from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred to the difference of recognition accorded to architects and structural engineers. That is something which needs to be faced by the professions and not by the Government. He recommended that the Government should read Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance. I can assure him that I have read it and will ensure that it has a wider distribution.
The only issue on which I disagreed with the noble Lord was when he said that design had received too much attention. This is one area in which I believe British engineering has not achieved success. Some of its products would have had far greater commercial success had they been better designed and had they included a greater proportion of what the consumer wanted as against the technical capability involved. That applies especially to consumer durables.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made a good point Chen he referred to the presentation of the engineering profession. He said that if there were a David Bellamy of engineering, engineering status would benefit. I am sure that that is true. I fear that I can be of no help in providing a constructive answer as to who that individual should be.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne proposed an extension of the Queen's Award scheme and suggested the possibility of a Queen's Award for engineering excellence. I thank him for his suggestion and will take it back to the department. He also referred to the
1154
desire to influence academic institutions to grant a higher percentage of degrees relevant to engineering. I believe that I answered that point earlier.
Evidence was given of the need to combine business skills with engineering skills. There is little dissension in the House on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, reasonably said that figures could be bandied about. At this hour I fear that that would not be of advantage to the debate. In fairness to the noble Lord, he did very little bandying about of figures and so I too shall desist from doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. drew our attention to his interesting experience in the Falklands and the ability of an engineer to have lateral and interesting thoughts regardless of where in the world he is put down. I am sure that we know that to be true, but perhaps we need to be reminded of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, referred to misunderstandings. He said that engineers are often seen as no more than the men who come around to fix the washing machine. That is not a state of affairs that any part of the House would wish to encourage. Far from it—we wish people to desist from that misguided belief.
We have had a constructive debate, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the subject.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was pleased by the Minister's reply. He said that he disagreed with me on one matter, and, to tell the truth, I was surprised about that. He was right. I was not talking about the necessity for style but about the over-importance attributed to stylists in our society. We probably agree about that point.
The debate has been interesting and was enlivened by two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Lane, is, in my experience, a peculiarity, in the sense that he is a chartered accountant who not only understands engineers but speaks nicely about them. I gathered from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that what the noble Lord, Lord Lane, has done is to come here to join the family business.
The other maiden speaker was the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. He spoke as the third chartered civil engineer in the House. We are all sitting here beaming at one another. That restores the status quo of a few years ago. The other two members of the profession were the late Lord Hinton and the late Professor Lord Baker, whom older Members will remember. The two maiden speeches were delightful and I hope that we shall hear much more from the noble Lords.
I was especially glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, intervened, although unfortunately he has left the Chamber. He admitted that he was related by marriage to the late Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who also seems to be a hero of the Minister. I am beginning to wonder about my touch, because the last time I spoke in a debate in the House I spoke about Ironbridge and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said

1155
that he was descended from Abraham Darby. I do not know who will rise to claim acquaintance with whom the next time I speak. I shall have to be careful.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, reminisced and mentioned the versatility of I.K. Brunel. I recall that, when he was building the Great Western Railway, he was sitting at his desk one day when one of his young men rushed in in a flurry to say that a bridge which had just been finished had fallen down. "Thank God", said Brunel, "I was just about to build 20 more like it".
I was greatly taken also by a comment which was not made in the debate. It was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, as she passed me on leaving the Chamber. She chided me for not mentioning the Women's Engineering Society. I am happy to say that two noble Lords mentioned women in engineering. They are important. What is interesting is that at long last the idea is getting about that engineering at the professional level is a genteel profession and one which ladies can undertake just as readily as gentlemen. We hope that the number of women engineers will increase. When I was an engineering student there was only one lady engineer in our class, and she led a busy life one way or another.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned one or two points which attracted my attention. One related to what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said when he talked about people's perception of engineering. The British are often accused, especially by designers, of being visually illiterate. That may well be true and no doubt it is a bad thing. However, much more important is that the British are technologically illiterate; that is not merely bad, it is catastrophic.
My noble friend Lord Williams drew our attention to the position of the engineer in France. That is a cultural matter which relates to what I said earlier about the two cultures. The French system naturally assumes that engineers will take a leading role and rise to the top of society. They have a tendency to become presidents. I admit that the French definition of an engineer is not as close and tight as ours, but engineers are greatly respected in France. In Britain, no such respect is given to them.
Before closing the debate, I wish to take up the points which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, made about the narrowness of engineering education. He mentioned his own. The problem with both his and that of others—I do not single him out here—is that he was educated in the wrong country. Had he been educated in Scotland, he would have taken the higher leaving certificate instead of three tight A-levels. He would then have gone on to a four-year engineering degree which, even in the 1940s when I took it, included management. Mind you, he would have had to go to Glasgow University or what is now the University of Strathclyde to do it, but it would have done him nothing but good.
I am grateful to everyone who spoke in this extremely interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill
7.32 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In advance I wish to thank all noble Lords who have agreed to speak and I look forward with great pleasure to hearing the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester, who is patron of ASH—Action on Smoking and Health. His speech in your Lordships' House in June 1984 on the report, "Health or Smoking?" was memorable and widely quoted in the media.
At this stage I should declare an interest in the subject of the Bill. I am a founder member of PAT—Parents Against Tobacco—the organisation sponsoring the Bill. It was introduced in another place by the honourable Member for Warley East, Mr. Andrew Faulds. Its purpose is to strengthen existing legislation on the sale of tobacco products to children.
It is already an offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the 1937 Act in Scotland for retailers to sell cigarettes to children who are apparently under 16 years of age. It is reasonable to ask, "Why is further legislation necessary?" It is because the present laws are ineffective. They are being flouted to what I would call a farcical degree, were the subject not so serious. Children under 16 have no difficulty at all in buying cigarettes. Even 10 year-olds can walk into shops and come out with packets of cigarettes. Recent surveys carried out after a year of extensive publicity about illegal cigarette sales show little, if any, improvement on figures compiled a year earlier. Then 50 per cent. of shopkeepers were shown to be breaking the law.
At this stage it may be interesting if I report that in October last year West Yorkshire County Council carried out a major survey in which children visited 97 premises and attempted to buy cigarettes. Overall, 41 per cent. of shops sold cigarettes to them. In one particular part of the county 14 out of 16 tobacconists—that is, 87 per cent. of the shops visited—sold cigarettes to children clearly under 16 years of age. Also, at the end of last year trading standards officers in Kingston upon Thames visited 28 shops with a 13 year-old girl who attempted to buy cigarettes. Fifteen out of the 28 shops—over 50 per cent—sold them to her.
It is clear that the present law is not working because it is not being enforced. In 1988 there were only 29 prosecutions for this offence in the whole of the United Kingdom. That was despite the fact that the tobacco industry admits to at least£70 million of illegal cigarette sales to under age children. There have been more prosecutions during 1990, largely stimulated by the Parents Against Tobacco campaign. In some areas prosecutions have been brought for the first time ever.
This may be encouraging, but the present scale of fines is so low that they are no real deterrent to the unscrupulous shopkeeper. On average, fines are below £100. For example, recently magistrates in

1157
Humberside fined two retailers £50 each. Fines of that level are insufficient. The gravity of the offence is not apparent when the penalty is only a small fine.
I hardly need to describe in detail the health risks in smoking. I have spoken to your Lordships on that subject on a number of occasions. The risks are very well known, but they cannot be over-emphasised. Cigarette smoking is much the biggest preventable cause of death in the UK. In 1987, 40,187 people died from lung cancer. Approximately 90 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer and bronchitis are directly caused by smoking. At least 110,000 people die prematurely each year from smoking-related diseases. Numerically, the majority die from coronary heart disease. At least 25 per cent. of those who die from that condition, which is our biggest killer, do so as a result of smoking. The younger the victim of the coronary heart attack, the more likely it is that smoking is a contributory cause to the death.
Most people acquire the habit of smoking early in life. Over 300,000 children between the ages of 11 and 15 are regular smokers: 23 per cent. of all girls and 17 per cent. of all boys aged 15 smoke. Until recently, cigarette smoking was falling in the United Kingdom, largely because older adults had become convinced of its health hazards. However, to replace those who give up smoking, the tobacco industry needs to recruit a new generation of smokers. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. It is as addictive as heroin and other hard drugs. Even though it may not appear to do so much harm when taken, the long-term effects are just as drastic.
The habit of smoking is easily established and extremely difficult to break. The young are particularly vulnerable: 75 per cent. of adult smokers became addicted before they were 18. Children who smoke are likely to become adults who smoke. Boys who smoke now will become fathers who smoke. In turn, their children will be at risk through passive smoking. There is a clear connection between the number of cigarettes smoked in the home and the incidence of respiratory diseases in the children who live in that home.
Women who are heavy smokers—those who smoke 20 or more a day—are twice as likely to have miscarriages as are non-smokers. Children born of mothers who smoke during pregnancy are on average 8 ounces—half a pound—lighter than those born to non-smokers. Smoking has a direct effect on perinatal mortality. The risk to infants increases by 20 per cent. for those whose mothers smoke fewer than 20 cigarettes a day and by 35 per cent. for those whose mothers smoke more than 20 a day. Children whose parents smoke are more likely to become smokers themselves. A vicious circle is formed and it is only by breaking that circle that we have a chance of preventing unnecessary deaths and promoting healthier lives. That is what this Bill aims to do.
I shall now describe briefly the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 aim to introduce higher levels of fines and improve the wording of current legislation. The maximum fine available at present is£400. However, as I said earlier, the fines levied by the courts are much lower. This Bill would raise the fines to level 4 which
1158
provides for a maximum of £1,000. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill now proceeding through your Lordships' House, the level 4 maximum will rise to £2,500.
This scale of penalty will allow magistrates to impose fines which will reflect the severity of the offence and provide a real deterrent to irresponsible retailers. Clauses 1 and 2 also amend the primary legislation to clarify the offence and to make prosecution easier. At present the offence includes a subjective element. The offence is committed where a retailer sells cigarettes to a child who is apparently under the age of 16. That provision has caused problems and confusion and has deterred many local authorities from bringing prosecutions because of the need to produce children in court to show how old they appeared to be. Under this Bill the offence will no longer be the sale of cigarettes to children who are apparently under the age of 16, but absolutely to those who are under the age of 16. The production of a birth certificate in court should suffice to satisfy magistrates about the customer's age.
However, the honest and responsible retailer will he protected by the introduction of a defence where previously none existed. Retailers who can show that they have taken,
"reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence"
to prevent sales to children under 16 can use that as a defence in any proceedings.
The Bill also plugs a potential loophole in the law. Children now have easy access to vending machines in places such as cinema foyers, amusement arcades and other such places. The vending machine trade estimates that 20 per cent. of machines are in places accessible to the under-16s. Under this Bill it will be possible to take action if a vending machine has been used just once by anyone under the age of 16. At present the law only covers a situation where a vending machine "is being used extensively". However, that is difficult to prove. Under the Bill if evidence laid before a court shows that anyone under the age of 16 has used the machine, magistrates can order the removal of the machine, or its control, so that use by under-16s cannot recur.
Clause 3 deals with an especially unpleasant practice. There are unscrupulous traders who make a higher profit from children who smoke by breaking open packs of cigarettes and selling them singly. This is done because children often cannot afford the price of a whole packet of cigarettes. However, the sale of single cigarettes in effect hooks children onto the habit of smoking. When they are older and can afford them they buy whole packets of cigarettes.
Clause 3 will make it illegal for retailers to sell cigarettes except in the original pack of 10 or more. This will cause retailers to stop and think seriously before they break open packs of cigarettes as they will be committing an offence by that action alone, quite apart from the sale of a cigarette to a child. This clause will attract a lower level of fine (level 3 rather than level 4) as traders can be prosecuted both under the primary clause—that is, the sale of cigarettes to

1159
under-16s—and under this new clause dealing with the breaking open of packs and the sale of cigarettes singly.
Clause 4 will require notices to be prominently displayed at the point of sale stating that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 16. Those notices will also have to be displayed on vending machines. Thus the law on cigarette sales will quite properly be advertised where it matters, as is currently done with alcohol in public houses and off-licences.
Clause 5 deals with another aspect of inadequate enforcement. Earlier I stated that children are able to buy cigarettes with' ease because the law at present is not being enforced. Clauses 5 and 6 will provide a remedy for that because they will require one tier of local government at least once every 12 months to consider the extent to which it is appropriate for it to carry out a full programme of enforcement action in its area. This action would include investigations into retailer behaviour, following up complaints, bringing prosecutions and taking any other steps that might be necessary to reduce the incidence of illegal sales.
All local authorities, except in Scotland, have powers to enforce the existing legislation. Those powers will not be affected by the Bill. The new provision will ensure that at county council level, or its equivalent, a regular review of the supply of cigarettes to children under 16 will be undertaken. Where a problem appears to exist the local authority is given a clear indication of how to proceed.
Local authorities and trade associations have made clear their support for this more active approach to enforcement. Many local councils support the Parents Against Tobacco campaign and have welcomed the prospect of a broadly framed duty, as required in this clause.
The public themselves have made clear their support for firm action. In response to a MORI opinion poll, 95 per cent. of the public replied that the law in this area should be strictly enforced. Therefore this legislation is not being foisted on an unwilling populace.
Clause 6 applies the Bill to Scotland where somewhat different arrangements prevail with regard to prosecution. The effect of the Bill should be the same in Scotland with the local authority laying any evidence it has before the procurator fiscal who can then decide to prosecute rather than going ahead with the prosecution itself, as in England.
This Bill will prevent children under 16 from being able to buy cigarettes. That will give them a chance to grow up to be healthy and perhaps to be a lot wealthier than they would be as smokers supporting a cigarette habit. There is also evidence that drug and alcohol problems are much more common among smokers. Therefore, those evils might also be alleviated by this Bill. No one should believe, of course, that this measure alone will stop smoking in childhood, but it seeks to deal with the supply side of the problem more effectively than any previous legislation.
This Bill was extensively considered in another place. There were four days in Committee and the
1160
Report and Third Reading stages lasted three-and-a-half hours. I feel that the original Bill has been weakened during its passage through another place in that a clause which made tobacco product advertising outside retail outlets illegal was dropped. However, the tobacco industry has voluntarily agreed to cut that advertising by 50 per cent. and to remove billboard advertising of tobacco products from within sight of school premises and playing fields. We shall have to watch carefully to see whether that agreement is properly carried out.
At present I do not have any definite amendments planned to the Bill. However, I welcome any which strengthen the effect of the Bill and I shall vigorously oppose any which further weaken the effect of this modest but I hope useful Bill. It is to this country's credit that for over half a century we have had legislation to prevent the sale of cigarettes to children, but it is to our discredit that we have failed to make that legislation work in practice. By introducing many practical improvements this Bill creates the framework for regular review of trade practices and a blitz on illegal sales whenever and wherever necessary. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Rea.)
7.50 p.m.
The Duke of Gloucester: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House on this subject—as delighted as I was when I was invited to be President of Parents Against Tobacco. I have been trying to help ASH for some years in its struggles, but I am constantly haunted by the futility of persuading and helping lots of adults to give up smoking yet knowing that thousands and thousands of schoolchildren are following inexorably the same path. It is like watching an escalator taking people to a disaster. The cycle repeats and repeats.
The children start smoking as a lark or a dare, or for whatever reason, and become addicted. They try to give up later. Either they succeed with great suffering or they fail and endure the consequences, which may include being one of the 300 people who every 24 hours die prematurely as a result of smoking tobacco.
Parents Against Tobacco as a campaign concentrates on this one area of children starting to smoke and has approached it on a broad front. The Bill is an important part of that campaign. However, it is PAT's intention to bring the debate we are having here today to every community and, if possible, into every household.
For too long the tobacco industry's greatest ally has been the British sense of inhibition. Personal habits are not something that we discuss easily, and talk of addiction and dependency does not come up easily in most people's houses. It becomes a taboo subject. It is the sort of thing that one would expect to discuss only in a doctor's surgery or in a science lesson. The consequence is that perhaps the single most important decision, at least as regards health, that we as human beings make is usually made by

1161
teenagers who are totally unprepared to approach it rationally. I am referring to the question, "Would you like to smoke?".
PAT, together with others, has done its surveys as to why the answer is so often, "Yes". The first reason is that it seems grown up. It is inevitable that, if there is adult disapproval, to children the banned activity immediately appears the thing to do. There is perhaps that sense of sophistication which waving a cigarette about appears to give. For girls, the majority believe that smoking makes one thin and therefore attractive. For boys, it makes them seem sporty, manly and independent. Of course they read the health warning, but what does it mean? That they might get a headache one day? Smoking, they know, only kills old people. So what? Heroin they are frightened of because they know that it kills young people, but tobacco only kills the old. The concept of addiction is not understood. The assumption is that if for any reason they do not like smoking they can just walk away from it.
The scientists show us that the earlier one starts smoking the more destructive it is and the more addictive. We live in a consumer society and very often to young people consumption is something that they cannot afford. But they think that they can afford smoking, particularly if they buy the cigarettes one at a time. As we have seen, a clause in the Bill is intended to prevent shops selling them one at a time. I have been told that, if one smokes four cigarettes, that is probably enough to produce addiction.
Starting to smoke cigarettes often leads to other drugs. I do not suggest that all smokers become drug addicts, but if one turns it round the other way there are very few drug addicts who are not already smokers. Smoking is the first corrupting step of putting a chemical into one's lungs where it does not belong. If our lungs had nerves and felt the pain, very few people would smoke.
We live in a society which is increasingly health conscious. Our expectations are changing. Retirement used to be thought of as a restful period of brief duration described as "declining years". As we progress—medically, socially, even gastronomically—retirement will be seen as a period of freedom for people fit in mind and body to carry out their ambitions. Tobacco has no part in that scenario and today's deliberations will direct a spotlight on that murky business where the power of the tobacco industry is recruiting its replacement victims through the many small shops, run most frequently by decent people who can only follow the practice that is normal Our attitude as parents protecting our children from that norm also plays a role because it is a matter which must be discussed as publicly as possible to establish what is right.
This Bill is both practical and reasonable in its demand that our children should be protected from access to a product that can only stunt and diminish their lives, however much they may imagine the contrary.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, it is both a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester, and his quite outstanding speech. We all know of the tremendous work which he has carried out on behalf of Parents Against Tobacco and many other organisations which are campaigning against smoking. The pity of it is that there is not a much fuller House to hear what the noble Duke had to say. It is to be hoped that his speech will be very widely read, because it is one of the most important speeches for a long time.
The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his extremely clear exposition of an important Bill. This is not a Bill to ban smoking. Some speeches in the other place suggested that it was that kind of Bill. It is not that kind of Bill.
We can all recount stories of smoking in our childhood. At the age of eight or nine I managed to cadge a cigarette. I took two puffs, I could not exhale and so I swallowed the smoke. I was violently sick. I have not smoked since. My mother, who ended her life prematurely as a result of smoking, caught me. All she said was, "Serve you damn well right. You won't do it again". If it had been alcohol it would have been a very different matter. I would have been chastised to within an inch of my life.
We are not here to discuss the merits or demerits of smoking and drinking. However, I suggest to your Lordships that smoking, particularly by children, can do irreparable harm. I am not a doctor but all my family have for many years taken an interest in matters connected with health. Various parts of the children's body are growing, including the sinus and other parts of the breathing apparatus. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if they smoke, they may damage that part of their body and also their throat. That is particularly so because they do not always pick up the right kind of cigarette. They may well smoke a cheap brand of cigarette which is particularly damaging.
One may ask, what about glue sniffing and alcohol and other things which very young children often get up to? It may well be that there have been as many, if not more, deaths, particularly recently, as a result of glue sniffing as there have been as a result of smoking, but there is one point about smoking, whether it concerns children or anyone else, which must be made. One can drink alcohol or sniff glue or whatever else without directly harming other people. Smoking, particularly if it involves children smoking among other children, damages not only the person concerned but the other people around. For that reason alone, the Bill is vital.
As in all legislation, there are problems of enforcement. There are defences written into the Bill. The village shop is a problem. Those who live in villages know that, particularly at weekends, the shop becomes crowded and a lot of kids go in to buy sweets, newspapers and cigarettes. The proprietor of the shop might not be there. Schoolchildren might serve and, under pressure, they might perhaps not notice that they are selling cigarettes to a kid of seven or eight years old. There is a defence in the Bill about that, but, equally, it is the proprietor's responsibility to make

1163
sure that anyone whom he employs and who is selling cigarettes, no matter what their age, knows the consequences of behaving illegally.
Clause 4, which refers to vending machines, is perhaps the only problem clause. I would almost go so far as to say that vending machines should be abolished. Perhaps that is going rather far, but they are a nuisance. People vandalise them, they do not work and, if children cannot get what they want out of them, they will kick them or otherwise damage them. In my view—I do not think that I am alone in this—vending machines could be abolished. That would prevent many problems.
It has been said that if a child smokes once he may not do it again. I recalled a personal instance of that earlier, but I do not advocate a similar course of action. We already have problems with pollution from, among other things, motor cars. We do not want pollution through cigarettes. There is no doubt that children are healthier today. One must perhaps ask oneself why children smoke. Perhaps they do so as a dare; because little Johnny smokes, little Tim should smoke as well to keep up with the lads. We all want to show initiative and to keep up with the lads in the right things, but not with smoking.
The Bill, particularly Clause 4, which deals with vending machines, needs tidying up. Clause 4 is the only provision that may be difficult to enforce. However, everyone who is interested in children's health will wish the Bill well.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, for 17 years I represented the constituency of Bristol, South in the other place. I had the honour to do so until the majority of my local Labour Party management committee decided that I was not a fit and proper person to continue as its public representative. Fortunately, however, I found another niche in Parliament in your Lordships' House.
Bristol, South had a high concentration of tobacco workers, in both cigar and cigarette factories, so I took a keen interest in the industry and did what I could as a constituency member to make sure that my constituents were treated fairly. I never attempted to deny the medical evidence which linked the smoking of tobacco with various diseases and conditions. Recognising some people would continue to smoke, I directed my efforts to trying to persuade them to adopt less harmful methods of smoking such as using filter cigarettes and cigarettes with a reduced tar content. The tar and nicotine tables which should appear in tobacconists are a result of a schedule which I moved in Committee to the smoking Bill introduced by the late Sir Gerald Nabarro when he attempted to get the Bill through the House.
My reason for speaking on the Bill tonight is very specific. A few days ago in your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney asked a Question about the role of a baby in an Inspector Morse episode and whether all the conditions relating to the use of children in stage and television performances had been
1164
fulfilled. Although the House gained a certain amount of amusement from the Question, it also took seriously the point made by my noble friend.
I should like to explain what I find objectionable about the campaign that has been run. We have been given evidence of the breaking of the law by retailers. That evidence has been compiled by people who have taken under-age children round and told them to go into shops to see whether they can buy cigarettes. In other words, the adults conducting the campaign have incited young children to go in to see whether an offence is committed. That is not right. It is not the proper way for responsible people to collect evidence. It is not right when council officers do it. However worthy the cause, it cannot be right to employ illegal methods in order to collect evidence.
I noticed that my noble friend Lord Rea said that one offence involving a vending machine could close the machine down. It needs only one of the zealous officials that he mentioned to take a 13 year-old round for a few days and you could virtually close down the lot. That point should be considered in Committee.
I do not wish to dwell on the problems in my former constituency. The number of tobacco workers there is dwindling fast. That is a reflection of the substantial reduction in the number of people who smoke. In addition to the workers, there are a large number of pensioners who receive a pension from Wills, or, as it now is, Imperial Tobacco.
People who conduct campaigns do not always think through to the end of their efforts. Perhaps I may take the question of defence. A number of people have pressed for years for substantial cuts in defence. Only this morning I heard on the radio that a study by Bristol polytechnic has predicted that, with the anticipated cuts in defence expenditure in the coming years, 45,000 highly skilled jobs will be lost in the Bristol, Cheltenham, Gloucester and Yeovil areas. I do not believe that the people who have pressed all that time for a reduction in defence expenditure have given serious consideration to what those highly skilled people will do if they lose their work. I was the unsuccessful Labour candidate in south Gloucestershire in the 1964 and 1966 general elections. The question of possible defence cuts came up constantly. There was a great deal of sloppy talk about diversification which we still hear today. If it was possible to diversify so easily, surely the firms concerned would already have done so.
I only make that point because today we sometimes seem to be run by pressure groups and minorities. The majority does not belong to pressure groups and minorities. But I sometimes wish that the zealots would think a little further than the direct end of their campaigns, realise that society is interdependent and give some thought to those other problems which are constantly being created and are with us all the time.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his clear introduction to the Bill in your Lordships' House. It is good to have the noble Duke the Duke of Gloucester with us to speak on the subject. I give full support to the Bill. I hope

1165
that most Members of your Lordships' House will do the same, remembering that this evening we are speaking about children.
As many noble Lords will have noticed, my noble kinsman my husband—not my noble kinsman my cousin (who does not smoke)—smokes far too many cigars. But a few years ago I had some success with him when he used to smoke cigarettes and developed a cough. I said to him, "Give it up for three weeks and see what happens". His cough disappeared. When he started smoking again his cough returned. Once again he gave up cigarettes and has not smoked a cigarette since then. Perhaps one day the same will happen with cigars. What a blessed relief that would be to me.
There is plenty of evidence that smoking tobacco can damage one's health. But to many young people and children that outcome seems a long way off. As a child during the war one of my great discomforts was that so many people smoked. I have always detested the habit, which creates so much pollution in clear air. The smell is awful and the smoke is hurtful to the eyes. For a long time non-smokers have been at risk from passive smoking. It is encouraging that now more places are smoking-free. It has always been a relief to me that people cannot smoke in your Lordships' Chamber.
I have observed that young people who smoke are more inclined to become involved in alcohol and drug abuse. This Bill will help to close loopholes in the current legislation on the sale of tobacco to the under-16s. It is important that the legislation is taken seriously. The laws must be enforced so that children are not put at risk.
Last night a noble Baroness in this House told me that she had been sitting in a non-smoking compartment of a train when some young children entered. They noticed that it was a non-smoking compartment and went out. Some years ago I interviewed a young person in a youth custody establishment—now called a young offenders institution—and asked the boy how old he was. He said that he was 15. I noticed that he had very stained fingers. I asked him, "Do you smoke much?" and he replied, "Yes, but I am trying to cut down". I returned to your Lordships' House the following week and spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was then a Minister at the Home Office. I told him that in the young offenders institution all the young people from the age of 15 to 21 were allowed to buy tobacco. I was pleased that he was able to put the matter right and I hope that that is still the case.
I am pleased that the Bill states clearly that there will be notices displaying warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines. The notice will state that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. I hope that such a notice will also be displayed in any of Her Majesty's penal establishments where there are young people under the age of 16 and tobacco is sold.
It is very worrying that so many young girls smoke. This legislation should help parents who do not smoke but whose children smoke, feeling that it is important to keep up with their peers. Many parents like me—I am a non-smoker but have a smoking partner—often
1166
feel that they have been losing the battle, with no strong legislation to back them up. For many years medical evidence has shown how many illnesses are related to smoking. I lost my father when he was 51. He died from a coronary heart attack. He was a heavy smoker.
Clause 3 deals with the sale of unpackaged cigarettes. Selling children single cigarettes seems an ideal way to introduce them at a low cost to a habit which may kill them in the end. I am told that it is a practice often found in poor areas. In medical terms the people in social class 5 are those most at risk from smoking related diseases. They are most liable to perinatal problems and to the birth of small babies when they are smoking mothers.
Many people will have worked very hard to bring the Bill to its present stage. I can imagine how much discussion there has been on the issue of advertising. I have been involved with the debate on alcohol advertising, which is another problem and lures children into dangerous habits. I should like to congratulate all those who have an interest in protecting children from the dangerous habit of smoking. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a speedy and safe passage through this House so that it can become law as soon as possible.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the clear way in which he introduced the Bill. I hope that he will be willing to consider amendments, although I have none planned. I thought that his noble friend Lord Cocks made some very valid points about Clause 4 and the problems of vending machines.
Preventing people from polluting the environment is very difficult. The mass action that is necessary depends on unreliable political processes. Laws often control the wrong things at far too great a cost. For example, a non-smoker living or working with a smoker may double his or her chances of contracting lung cancer. Our regulations still ignore this ubiquitous and lethal form of pollution while wasting millions of pounds controlling pollutants of far less consequence.
There is no doubt that the most effective strategy in reducing the costs to health of smoking would be to stamp out the epidemic at its source; namely, in childhood. For that reason I support the Bill.
Why do people continue to smoke when they know the risks? Smokers will not stop smoking while it gives them certain benefits. The campaigners for the elimination of cigarette smoking have not realised that people would lose those benefits. Tobacco has significant effects on behaviour and psychological state. Research has shown that cigarette smokers and other tobacco users find that tobacco makes it easier to cope with over-stimulation, such as city noise and overcrowding. The nicotine in cigarette smoke is a stimulus barrier—a substance that makes it easier for a person to function in an over-stimulating environment.
I think it right that we stress and repeat the problems of smoking. The most serious risks are those

1167
of increased rates of cancer and cardiovascular disease. The tars of tobacco contain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, which could possibly cause between 40 and 80 per cent. of all internal human cancers. Those substances can cause mutations in the DNA blueprint material of dividing cells which can result in cancer and lead to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques.
Another hazardous chemical contained in cigarette smoke is acetaldehyde which is also found in smog and in the bloodstream of heavy drinkers. That toxic chemical is known as a cross-linker because it makes undesirable chemical bonds via free radical reactions between molecules in the body such as proteins and nucleic acids. Examples of cross-linked proteins are wrinkled, inelastic skin and inelastic, hardened arteries. Emphysema is caused to a substantial extent by cross-linking of lung tissues. Nicotine also has risks, causing blood vessels to constrict, thus increasing blood pressure and causing an increase in blood fats such as cholesterol. Cigarette smoke also contains heavy metals, in particular lead, radioactive polonium and arsenic which poison certain enzyme reactions in the body; and carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides which destroy the ability of the blood to carry oxygen and can form cancer-causing substances.
Even the most heavy adult smokers, though unwilling to give up themselves, recognise the hazard that smoking presents for their children. I hope that the Bill will also help parents actively to discourage their children from taking up smoking.
The follow-up report of the Royal College of Physicians, Health or Smoking, published in 1983, recommended that there should be strengthened legislation concerning the sale of cigarettes to children. A survey in 1982 had shown that 76 per cent. of children from Cumbria and Tyne and Wear admitted that they obtained their cigarettes from shops. At long last we have additional legislation to reinforce the law relating to the sale of cigarettes. I hope that it will be accompanied by wider national action to discourage smoking, as has been the case in other parts of the world. Most hope for the future lies with non-smoking children. The report of the Royal College of Physicians recommended the drawing up of a comprehensive government tobacco control policy including the banning of all forms of promotion. I hope that the current growing disfavour seen in public attitudes towards smoking will encourage such a policy and bring about a dramatic fall in smoking prevalence in this country.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall take a different line from that taken by the previous two speakers. Let me say straight away that I am not against tightening up the law relating to the sale of tobacco to young people. I am quite prepared to accept that enforcement should be ensured. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, I believe that there may be other motives in promoting the Bill. The
1168
proposed provisions, including the swingeing penalties for tobacco retailers, indicate that the Bill is more than it seems: it is yet another turn of the ratchet towards complete prohibition of smoking both in public and private.
We have reached a stage in this country where a considerable proportion of the population who smoke is being hounded and harassed often by self-appointed groups with puritanical zeal. Their successes to date have been significant, in particular in the monopoly public services where the unaccountable bureaucrats force their views on passengers and employees alike, regardless of public opinion or the normal individual rights one expects in a democratic society. Any excuse, however spurious, will do to initiate, not segregation of smokers on buses, but a complete ban, which does not restrict no-smoking to downstairs but upstairs too. That is quite unjustified. Smokers are entitled to as much consideration as anyone else. It is a great pity that the monopolies use their power to deny smokers that right.
How many of those who are anti-smoking have other obnoxious habits? I do not suggest what they are tonight. But how many of them think nothing of drinking intoxicating liquor and then driving their cars, thus putting their own and other people's lives at risk? There are people—I have met them at cocktail parties—who criticise, often with venom, others who smoke, but I notice that they have one or two glasses of whisky and then drive. People should think about their own dangerous and obnoxious habits before they try to deny other people their habits.
As my noble friend said, the penalty for selling tobacco to young people would increase under the Bill to £2,500. If a packet is split and the sale goes ahead, the penalty could be £3,500, if I am not mistaken. The penalty for selling intoxicating liquor to under-age youngsters remains at £1,000. Yet we read of cases where youngsters have bought themselves intoxicating liquor, got drunk, stolen cars and gone on to kill themselves and other innocent people. One wonders under those circumstances whether we have our priorities right. I might add that people do not batter their wives—or perhaps I should say spouses—and children, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has told us, because they have had a cigarette.
Lord Ennals: Smokers beat their wives.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is something very new. I have never heard it yet alleged against smokers that a fellow who has had a cigarette goes home and batters his wife. However, my noble friend on the Front Bench now proposes that it is so. I shall expect to receive proof of that from him in the morning's post.
But people often do this if they have had a skinful of drink. Perhaps drink will be the next target for legislation. Perhaps after that it will be cars. After all, it is alleged that the fumes from cars—which contain all the substances that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has illustrated that tobacco smoke contains—cause considerable damage to the environment, to trees, lakes, fish and the ozone layer, and cause global

1169
warming and so on. There is no suggestion yet that smokers damage the world environment—at least I hope not. Perhaps my noble friend will suggest that too.
Lord Ennals: Yes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I look forward to his speech with great interest. I have not heard yet that smokers cause our forests to wither, our fish to die and our climate to change, with dire consequences for millions of people throughout the world.
How many members of ASH or PAT think of such effects when they get into their cars to attend yet another meeting or function to plan their next move against the smoker? In their single-minded pursuit of the smoker, their task helped by lashings of public money, those people often forget that there are products that they and their children may use which may be equally as harmful to themselves, their fellows and the environment. I assure my noble friend that I shall not divide the House tonight. I shall support the Bill although I wish to table amendments at a later stage.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, there were certain elements of wisdom in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as I shall try to demonstrate. I acknowledge immediately that I have several objectionable habits but do not propose to list them here and now. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, deserves the thanks and congratulations of your Lordships' House for bringing forward this modest yet important Bill. I say "modest" because I do not believe that the Bill will achieve a great deal. The enforcement of many of its provisions rests with local authorities and my experience is that at the moment they are not capable of enforcing a great deal, not because they lack the will but because they lack the means. However, the Bill is important because it directs our attention to the most important aspect of smoking. I am a doctor and a former smoker—a relapsed former smoker who smokes again from time to time. I acknowledge that smoking is dangerous to health, damaging to the environment, causes fires, makes our houses untidy, burns our clothes, furniture and carpets and should be discouraged.
I was more than 18 years old when I started smoking. Therefore I speak from personal experience and there are lessons to be drawn from that. As a doctor, I was known to be deeply involved in health education. Whenever I lit a cigarette someone would say, "Oh doctor, I see that you smoke, doesn't it matter?". I had to say that it mattered a great deal but that it just did not matter to me. That was not a tenable position to hold and therefore I decided to stop smoking. I did not smoke for 10 years. I relate that experience merely to illustrate a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. Cigarette smoking is an addiction the same as any other. I say to noble Lords who have stopped smoking that they are not cured even though they may believe that they are. The desire to smoke in certain circumstances always returns.
1170
That is a fact that the non-smokers who pursue smokers with Cromwellian zeal sometimes fail to recognise.
Not having smoked for 10 years, I said to my wife, "I'll have a cigar after dinner. I am sure that it will not do me any harm". I smoked a cigar and said, "That was beautiful. It will not do me any harm so I shall smoke a cigar every evening after dinner". Before the week was over I was also smoking a cigar before dinner, after lunch and before lunch.
Smoking is a dangerous addiction. I accept that there is a causal relationship with many diseases and not merely a statistical relationship. Perhaps I may illustrate the difference for those who are not Members of this House. I am told that if one goes to the strip clubs in Soho one will find the front rows occupied exclusively by elderly gentlemen with bald heads. That is a statistical relationship. A causal relationship would mean that observing naked women at short range makes one's hair fall out. That is manifestly untrue. Therefore I say that there is a distinct causal relationship and that it is necessary for many reasons to reduce the amount of smoking.
Success will not come as a result of pursuing the addicts and punishing them. It will come as a result of people never starting to smoke. We must begin with the children. Perhaps I may outline a sad fact that I learnt some years ago when I was medical officer to one of Her Majesty's Royal ordnance factories. I conducted some research into the number of people applying to the factory for shop-floor jobs—it was at a time when such jobs in industry were available. We discovered that nine out of 10 applicants were established smokers. At the same time a colleague was carrying out research in universities. He discovered that only one in 10 entrants had ever smoked. I know that the figures have changed a little and that the figures given by Parents Against Tobacco relate to age groups and not to social groups. However, I believe that we have never got the message across to the more deprived social groups in our community whereas we have got it across to the more intelligent groups, the perhaps better educated classes. That is an important issue that we must consider but we shall not achieve success by compulsion.
I return to the interesting and amusing speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, because there is a lesson to be learnt. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is influential in such matters. He is a humane and kind person and not one to adopt a punitive attitude in respect of such issues. I hope that he understands that the way to get rid of smoking is by persuasion and ensuring that young people never smoke. Anything we can do to that end will be most welcome. The Bill goes a small way towards achieving that.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. He had to wrestle with the problems of many of his constituents who worked in the tobacco factories. I am reminded of a distinguished professor of medicine, now a Member of your Lordships' House, who addressed workers at Wills tobacco factory in Bristol. I was not present but I saw the address on video. At that time the professor was interested in particular in the problem of high blood

1171
cholesterol levels caused as a result of eating eggs and so forth. At the end of his lecture on tobacco-related diseases he bravely agreed to take questions. A lady employee said, "I was fascinated by your lecture and wish to ask one question. Do you believe that we should feel guilty about working in a cigarette factory?". He answered, "No one can divorce himself or herself from the end product of his work. But in so far as it is established that there is a causal relationship between cigarette smoking and certain diseases there must be an element of guilt. But", he went on to say, "that is nothing compared with the guilt of those who sell eggs!". It depends where one stands on the matter, because different arguments can be put forward.
As a doctor I say that it is important that the issue is tackled in the more understanding way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It understands that tobacco addicts have a real problem that requires sympathy and understanding but does not require punishment. A more enlightened attitude of that kind will be more helpful to children. None of my grandchildren smokes and, although one is only a baby, I believe that none will ever smoke. That will not be as a result of my doing but I hope that it will be as a result of the understanding of a serious problem. If we are to solve it we must ensure that people never start to smoke. If we believe that we can solve the problem by prohibiting people from smoking we are mistaken.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rea upon his admirable presentation of a modest Bill. I congratulate, too, Andrew Faulds, who introduced the Bill in another place. My noble friend sensed that he was given a tougher time by his noble friends on his right and left and I am grateful to him for sponsoring the Bill. I am also especially grateful to His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. I remember the last speech he made, which was very moving and convincing. He has done the same again today.
No one seems to doubt the danger of smoking to human life and health. There is much evidence not only of the dangers to human life and health but also of the linkage with such things as drugs to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred. A recent survey showed that children who smoke are more likely to take drugs ranging from cannabis to heroin than are non-smoking children. It is even more likely that they will be offered hard drugs, according to a Health Education Authority survey. Children are more likely to smoke if their parents are smokers. Therefore, that is a very important issue to look at.
Recently I saw a television programme—other noble Lords may have seen it too—about the death of a runaway. It was very moving. Two caring, distraught parents referred to their child's slide into vice and eventual death. The programme had been on for some time when the mother said, "By now she was smoking. There seemed to be nothing we could do about it". The mother and father—two caring parents—were smoking throughout the interview.
1172
Parents who smoke are much more likely to have children who smoke. Therefore in this debate we are not talking only about children, although the Bill is about children. The issue concerns us all.
I shall now part company with my two noble friends Lord Cocks and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I believe that my noble friend Lord Cocks used the word "zealot". I have looked in the dictionary and a zealot is a fanatic. Probably none of us would wish to be labelled a fanatic but many of us are enthusiasts. If we know that smoking is the largest single cause of premature death, what sort of people are we if we do not campaign to improve the situation? If we believe that the threat posed by destruction of the environment is a threat to life on earth, what sort of people are we if we do not campaign to try to improve the situation? If we know that in the world there is famine which is killing literally millions of people, what sort of people are we if we do not campaign to help under-developed countries to support themselves?
I should like to thank the group Parents Against Tobacco. I declare an interest which is not pecuniary, but I am the patron of an organisation called Quit, which was the National Society for Non Smokers. I was not one of its founder members because it was founded 65 years ago, when I was only three years old. It is interesting that at that time there was an organisation called the Clean Air Society. Those societies aim to help people who are addicted. It is pointless to punish addicts. There may be noble Lords in this House who are addicted and Quit is ready to offer its services to help people who are addicted.
I know that addiction is terrible because for years I was addicted to tobacco. It took a great effort of will and much hardship to overcome that addiction. People trying to conquer addictions always have a hard time. However, we should support those who are trying to conquer addictions. We should create a society in which it is not easy to become addicted and in which it is easier to be rid of the addiction once addicted. That is what this Bill is about.
The Bill attempts to ensure that the minimum number of children become addicted. There is no doubt that one is more likely to become addicted to cigarette smoking if one starts smoking young. All the evidence shows that most people who continue to smoke later in life were smoking by the age of 18.
A report published on 3rd May showed the discouraging result that the number of secondary school children who consider themselves to be regular smokers appears to be rising once more after years of anti-tobacco campaigning. The schools health education unit at Exeter University carried out a study which indicates an increase to more than one in six in the proportion of 14 and 15 year-old boys who had smoked in the previous week.
How had those children had access to cigarettes? It may be that in some cases parents had unwisely handed out cigarettes or had left them lying about and the child had stolen one. However, it is more likely that the children had done what the Bill is designed to discourage. They probably went into a tobacconist shop and the tobacconist did not question them about

1173
their age or, if the children were questioned, they told a lie. Nevertheless they were able to obtain the cigarettes.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, put the matter very well when he said that youngsters believe they look big if they are smoking. To a boy, it is like wearing a stetson hat and girls believe they look sophisticated, rather like Marilyn Monroe. There is a sexual image about smoking.
If there is no question that cigarette smoking by children leads to addiction in later life, then we must do everything we can by use of the law to see that they do not have access to something to which it is illegal to have access. It has been illegal since 1935. I congratulate my noble friend on this Bill. Its aim is to ensure that the law is applied and I shall support it in every way. I shall support amendments which seek to strengthen it and oppose amendments which seek to weaken it.
At the same time, let us recognise that we are touching on the tip of an iceberg with this Bill. As His Royal Highness said, we are facing a tremendous challenge. The best way to deal with that challenge is not by scorning people but by helping them. Part of that help is to ensure that they understand the facts.
I should like to say to my two noble friends who have raised questions about this that we must expect enthusiasts to campaign. I have been a campaigner all my life. That is what brought me into the Labour Party. I have campaigned for the social justice which I have seen in my party and I have done that together with my noble friends. I do not know why they believe that it is wrong or unpleasant to campaign for noble causes. I believe that it is a noble cause to try to see that youngsters are fitter and that they become fitter parents.
As time goes by, we learn more about this. We see the effects upon babies of young pregnant mothers smoking during their pregnancy and the effect that it is likely to have on their young children. I shall support my noble friend Lord Rea in every way I can. I say to those who believe that there is something wrong about campaigning that much hard work has been carried out in preparing for this Bill. Many people across the country are giving a great deal of their time to help those who are suffering from all sorts of addict ions. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is a marvellous example of a campaigner and a helper against drug addiction. I look upon cigarette smoking as being a form of drug use and addiction.
I believe that we need to join hands in helping those affected by the Bill; that is, not only the children but also the tobacconists. They must recognise the law and, if they break the law, then they must be prosecuted.
8.50 p.m
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have had a lively debate which was by no means unanimous in tone. Some hares wet e started which I do not intend to pursue, but it was entertaining to watch them run. I see my task as one of setting out the Government's position on the Bill, which I shall do at fairly full length.
1174
I start by thanking the noble Lord, my all-but namesake, Lord Rea, for introducing this Second Reading debate today. All noble Lords who take an interest in the health of the children of this country will be in agreement about the importance of protecting them from the dangers of smoking. The Government are very concerned about children under 16 taking up the smoking habit and the fact that they can often buy cigarettes without difficulty. The Government are convinced that the overwhelming majority of people, particularly parents, want to see an effective Bill on the statute book and therefore fully support this very useful Bill in its present form.
Selling cigarettes to children under 16 has been an offence since 1904. The current legislation is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and, in Scotland, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, both as amended by the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986. But the Government accept that the present law has not been particularly effective. The measures in the Bill concentrate on preventing the supply of cigarettes to children under 16 in a number of ways.
Clauses 1 and 2 will toughen the present law by amending Section 7 of the 1933 Act in England and Wales, and Section 18 of the 1937 Act in Scotland, in several respects. At present it is an offence to sell cigarettes to a person who is "apparently" under the age of 16. That has proved to be too imprecise and difficult to enforce. Under Clauses 1 and 2 the offence will be committed where the person is actually under 16. The Government recognise, however, that even the most conscientious retailer may occasionally be deceived by children who look older than their years. Clauses 1 and 2 also ensure, therefore, that retailers who can show that they took all reasonable precautions should have a defence against criminal charges. Basically, however, the Bill will shift the onus of demonstrating that a sale to a person under the age of 16 has been made unwittingly from the prosecuting authority to the shopkeeper.
Clauses 1 and 2 also increase the penalties for selling tobacco to children under 16. The new maximum fine will be increased from level 3 on the standard scale of penalties—currently £400—to level 4 which is at present —1,000 but will rise to £2,500 when the Criminal Justice Bill comes into force. That will be a warning to those retailers who continue to disregard the law that they risk a much heavier penalty if they are caught. The genuine and honest retailer who does not sell tobacco to children has obviously nothing to fear from that change.
The first two clauses in the Bill also tighten the law on the sale of cigarettes from vending machines to children under 16. The purpose of the amendment to the existing law is to prevent vending machines becoming an alternative source of supply for the under 16s. The Bill will make it easier for the courts to make an order to prevent the machine being used by children or, if necessary, to remove the machine from the premises where it is kept. At present, the courts have to be satisfied that a vending machine is being used extensively by children under 16. Under the Bill courts will be able to take action if they are satisfied

1175
that the machine has been used by any one person under 16. The maximum fine for failure to comply with such an order will be increased from level 3 to level 4 on the standard scale.
I now turn to Clause 3 of the Bill. This clause prohibits the sale of unpackaged cigarettes. Noble Lords may be asking why this clause is necessary as it is already an offence to sell cigarettes to children whether loosely or in packets. The Government accept that this clause partly duplicates the present law. However, the Bill's sponsors have been particularly concerned about the practice of children initially buying cigarettes in ones or twos and thereby getting into the smoking habit.
We recognise that there is a strongly held view that some retailers contrive to believe that there is nothing unlawful about selling single cigarettes to children, or, where they do understand that it is unlawful, believe that they can get away with it. We therefore accept the argument for having a specific provision on the face of the Bill to prohibit the sale of single cigarettes.
The clause will limit the rights of adults in a very small way in that they will no longer be able to buy cigarettes singly. However, I can assure noble Lords that nothing in this clause prevents retailers from continuing to sell cigars either singly or in packs of less than 10 to adults. I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will be pleased to hear that.
Clause 4 requires the publication of warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines to the effect that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. Clause 4 was substantially amended and enhanced during discussion in another place. The clause as it now stands requires a warning notice to be placed in retail premises and on vending machines to remind staff and customers of the law. The Government have always supported action along those lines and the clause will ensure that nobody who sells tobacco can claim ignorance of the law.
The nature of the warning notice will be laid down in regulations. That will allow flexibility to introduce changes if loopholes or problems become apparent. But I can assure the House that the intention is to require a sign of the type and size originally envisaged by the Bill's supporters. All interested parties will, of course, be consulted on the draft regulations; and we will seek the active involvement and co-operation of the tobacco industry and the retail trade in implementing this measure.
In addition to the new regulation-making power, the original proposal for a sign in shops has been extended to vending machines, and a number of other minor drafting changes have been made in another place to clarify what is required. I hope that this House will agree that that is a sensible way to proceed.
Clauses 5 and 6 are at the heart of the Bill and deal with the responsibilities of local authorities. Local authorities in England and Wales already have powers under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to ensure that the law in this area is being observed by retailers and to prosecute those who sell tobacco to young children. The purpose of Clause 5 is to require local authorities to consider at least once a year to
1176
what extent it is appropriate for them to carry out an enforcement programme designed to eradicate the practice of selling cigarettes to those under 16 years. This programme of action relates to offences under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the new offences under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill which, as I have already said, are designed to strengthen the law in this field. Much time was spent framing Clause 5 in debate in another place. In the format in which we see it before us today the legislation will, I believe, achieve the overall effect of raising the profile of this offence and ensure that it is taken seriously both by offenders and prosecutors.
The comprehensive approach we have adopted springs from the concern that local authorities may not have been taking their responsibilities under the 1933 Act seriously enough for a variety of reasons including, in some cases, the belief that such powers to act did not exist. What Clause 5 does is to re-emphasise those areas where local authorities have powers to take action in this field. It prompts them into considering exactly what they might and should be doing to prevent the sale of cigarettes to children. In combination with the other clauses of the Bill Clause 5 will stimulate local authorities into action.
As noble Lords will have noted, district councils in the shire counties were not on the list of those authorities to whom Clause 5 applies. However, that does not mean that they will not wish to take action, nor that they will be unable to do so. District councils have powers under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to prosecute for such offences.
The Government's determination to see that Clause 5 produces results is reflected in our commitment to back it up with a circular to local authorities, prepared jointly by those departments with an interest in this field, explaining exactly what local authorities' powers are to take action on these offences. It will remind them of their responsibilities in this field and the importance which the Government attach to taking action against offenders. It is hoped that, with the assistance of those already engaged in these activities, the circular will provide examples of best practice. These will serve to explain to local authorities the various ways in which the problem can be tackled. Local authority annual reports will be the vehicle for conveying information to the public on local action in this area.
I turn now to Clause 6 which deals in much the same way with the position in Scotland but reflects the different prosecution arrangements which apply there. It honours the commitment given by the Government when the matter was in Committee in another place. The Government amendment on enforcement action by local authorities in Scotland, introduced at Report stage in another place, was welcomed by the Bill's sponsors.
As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, all criminal offences in Scotland are dealt with by the Procurator Fiscal and to require local authorities in Scotland, in the exercise of their enforcement role under this Bill, to bring prosecutions in respect of offences would cut across these existing arrangements in an unacceptable way. That does not mean, however, that under the

1177
new duty which we propose under Clause 6, local authorities in Scotland would be unable to report offences to the Procurator Fiscal. The position would be the same as that which already applies in respect of other legislation enforced by local authorities in Scotland—for example, the law relating to consumer protection—and which operates quite satisfactorily without a specific reference to prosecutions or to the Procurator Fiscal.
As in England, the Scottish Office will be issuing a circular to local authorities and other relevant interests about the implications of the new measures, including the updating of the Code of Practice on the Publication of Annual Reports and Finance Statements by Local Authorities in Scotland to reflect the provision of the Bill.
Finally, I turn to Clause 8 to explain how the Bill is intended to apply to Northern Ireland. Successive Governments have taken the view that during direct rule legislation for Northern Ireland on matters such as this should generally be effected by separate Order in Council, with the force of primary legislation. That is what will happen in this case.
We believe that this Bill is a useful measure designed to protect children by cracking down on those irresponsible retailers who disregard the law by selling them cigarettes and so play a part in introducing them to a pernicious and addictive habit, the disadvantages of which we have only come fully to appreciate in our own time and which they may spend much of the rest of their lives attempting to shake off. I am sure that noble Lords will want to give the Bill a Second Reading and ensure that it is on the statute book as soon as possible.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what I believe has been one of the most lively debates that we have had for some time. I particularly appreciated the contribution of His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, who made a very wise, realistic and penetrating analysis of the problem. I wish to emphasise a point made by my noble friend Lord Ennals. This Bill is not just about children, but about all of us. The problem may start with children but the damage is done later in life.
I do not have time to reply to every speaker, especially as some have already been answered by speakers who followed them. It is incumbent on me to make some response to my noble friends sitting on my left and on my right who added a great deal of life to the whole evening. My noble friend Lord Cocks doubted whether it was legal, certainly not decent, to ask children of 13 years of age to go into a shop to buy cigarettes when they are being watched by an adult. I am informed that that practice is not illegal. It would only be so if a police officer set up someone to act as an agent provocateur.Trading standards officers often have to incite tradesmen to commit offences in order to be able to find out whether they have breached the law.
1178
My noble friend asked about diversifying the activities of the tobacco industry. As he well knows, it is already diversifying. The British American Tobacco company already has probably more money in other activities than in the manufacture of cigarettes. However, the tobacco industry will continue to make cigarettes as long as it can make a profit. It will continue to make profits as long as there is a market. The market will continue as long as people continue to become addicted to the habit. That is one reason why this Bill is absolutely necessary.
My noble friend on my left launched into what I feel was almost a tirade of paranoid fancy. It was very amusing. He was almost into overdrive when he spoke about being hounded with puritanical zeal by self-appointed groups, helped by lashings of public money. The lashings of public money which the anti-smoking campaigners—that is a nicer description than puritan—have is very tiny indeed compared with that available to the tobacco industry. I believe it is about 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the money available to the tobacco industry.
I was extremely grateful to hear my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, express such a constructive view of the Bill. That gives me hope that we shall have a fairly swift passage of the Bill through this House. It only remains for me to thank all speakers yet again for their extremely interesting and valuable contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Broadcasting (Restrictions on Holding of Licences) Order 1991
9.6 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord begins the next business, I am sure that we are all aware that he has been sitting through the previous debate and that he also made a long speech in reply. If he requires a couple of minutes in which to have a drink of water, or something stronger, I shall be quite happy.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind and thoughtful suggestion. I expected this moment and I am quite happy to continue. I suggest that I do so if she has no objection.
The order sets out supplementary ownership rules in accordance with the powers vested in the Secretary of State under Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. Noble Lords may recall from our debates on the Broadcasting Bill that, given the rapid pace of change in the broadcasting industry, we decided that it would be sensible to provide the necessary framework of control of media concentrations and cross-media ownership partly in the Act itself and partly through subordinate legislation, subject to affirmative resolution. In this way we could readily adapt the ownership

1179
controls in future to changing circumstances. The present order therefore completes the detailed pattern of ownership controls by building on and refining the broad framework contained in the Broadcasting Act itself.
In summarising the broad content of the order I shall begin with Channel 3. When the Government first announced their decisions on the ownership of Channel 3 licences on 19th May 1989, the then Home Secretary indicated that it would be permissible for one person or company to own two Channel 3 licences as long as these were not both large or adjacent to one another. Those initial proposals were based on the assumption—which has recently been confirmed by the ITC—that the ITC would retain the existing ITV map in terms of the number and geographical shape of the Channel 3 regions. Our thinking in making this general provision for one person to hold two Channel 3 licences was that such an arrangement could facilitate useful economies of scale without threatening regional identity.
We remain particularly anxious to avoid circumstances in which one owner could hold licences covering an unacceptably large part of the country. That is why we subsequently decided to move from our initial designation of six of the 15 areas as large—which therefore could not be owned in conjunction with another large area by the same person or company—and have increased this in the order to nine of the 15 areas. We consider that this should prevent combinations of ownership which could have given an unhealthy dominance to a single company.
The order also prevents a Channel 3 licence bidder from winning licences for two adjacent Channel 3 regions. However, that restriction will be lifted once the Channel 3 licences have been granted at the end of this year or at the beginning of 1992. From then on there will be no specific restriction on co-ownership of adjacent areas acquired through takeover as long as they are not both large areas, but takeovers of all kinds will be subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the new Broadcasting Act. This makes clear that no takeover can take place before the end of 1993 without the prior approval of the ITC. It is entirely a matter for the ITC to decide whether or not to consent to a takeover during that moratorium period. In practice we believe that the ITC will normally give their approval only in circumstances where one of the licensees is in serious financial difficulties, or where both licensees favour a planned merger. It is most unlikely to look favourably on a hostile takeover.
We have decided not to impose a ban on contiguous ownership for the full 10-year period of the licence, as we earlier envisaged, because it seemed to us—and indeed to the ITC—that in practice such a rule would be unhelpfully rigid. It could, for example, prevent combinations of ownership which offered the greatest scope for economies of scale and were thus particularly attractive in commercial terms. In our view it would not be practicable to rule out for all time the possibility of contiguous mergers, particularly given the uncertainties of the broadcasting environment in the 1990s. Under some circumstances
1180
co-ownership of adjacent areas might be in the best interests of all concerned. For example, an area might become non-viable in its own right but sustainable if owned by a contiguous licensee who could provide sensible economies of scale. The Government do not therefore believe that it would be right to put a permanent block on such co-ownership. However, we have accepted that initially it is right to provide smaller companies with the safeguard that they cannot be the subject of a takeover bid by a neighbour before they have had the chance to establish themselves. Even if a small licence area were taken over by a contiguous neighbour after 1993, the new owners would be fully bound to continue to honour the licence conditions and to provide the separate regional programming service which had been a feature of the original company's bid. However, ownership of two or more large areas, that is to say, nine out of the 15 areas whether or not contiguous, would remain prohibited indefinitely.
These provisions are in line with the spirit of the undertakings given by the Government during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill. Our underlying policy objectives have always been that a separate regional identity should be preserved for each licence area and that the important regional programming obligations should be fully discharged.
However, I should emphasise that the fact that we have made co-ownership possible in some circumstances does not necessarily mean that all or any of the smaller licence areas will be co-owned by companies holding larger regions. Even if some of them are, the provisions of the Broadcasting Act require that the full regional commitments must be met for each region. We are satisfied that our rules for co-ownership as set out in this order offer a flexibility of approach, yet are sufficient to protect smaller regions from loss of identity. The chairman of the ITC has also indicated that he considers the commission will have no difficulty in ensuring that where licence areas are co-owned the licensee provides distinctive local programming for each region. Our aim in all our deliberations on this matter has been to ensure that the separate identity of each region is preserved.
As noble Lords may recall, the new Broadcasting Act itself contains substantial safeguards for regional identity. These make it unnecessary to look to the supplementary ownership rules to provide further protection. The Act, for example, stipulates that each regional Channel 3 licensee must give a sufficient amount of time to a range of regional programmes of particular interest to those living in the area. It also requires that a suitable proportion of these regional programmes should be made in the region. It therefore follows that even if one owner held the licences of two contiguous areas he would not be able to treat them as a single jumbo region and transmit identical programmes to both areas. That point is reinforced by the fact that the ITC has recently indicated that it would expect 80 per cent. of regional programmes to be made in each region to comply with the Act's provisions.
All in all the arrangements set out in the order, read alongside the provisions of the new Act, represent a

1181
combination of measures well able, in our view, to guarantee the continuance of the distinctive regional identity of each area while still allowing an essential flexibility of approach.
I turn briefly to the other provisions of the order, beginning with the measures designed to regulate the number of Channel 3 licences in which any one person may have an interest. The order provides that once a person has the maximum ownership allowed in two regional Channel 3 licences—that is a controlling interest in both unless they are large and contiguous, in which case a controlling interest in one and up to but not including a controlling interest in the other—he may then have up to a 20 per cent. holding in a third regional Channel 3 licence and thereafter a maximum of 5 per cent. shareholding in further such licences. Similar rules apply in relation to national Channel 3 licences and Channel 5 licences.
The draft order also provides that national newspaper owners may not have more than a 20 per cent. interest in a local radio licence and that neither national nor local newspaper proprietors may have more than a 20 per cent. interest in a Channel 3, Channel 5 or domestic satellite licence. I should make it clear that there is currently no domestic satellite licensee in existence. BSkyB is operating on domestic satellite frequencies under the terms of the transitional arrangements in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and is subject to the ownership requirements in the Broadcasting Act 1981 which do not contain any specific numeric restrictions on newspaper investment. These arrangements will come to an end on 1st January 1993, but the ITC has already indicated that by that date BskyB's contract to provide a domestic satellite service will have been terminated.
During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, there was much debate in this House and in another place as to whether a restriction on newspaper investment should apply also to non-domestic satellite services. Our view, now—as then—is that it should not. Domestic satellite services, in relation to which the 20 per cent. rule will apply, are allocated by international agreement and only a limited number are available to any one. country. The United Kingdom at present disposes of only five such services. Non-domestic satellite operators, on the other hand, face virtually open-ended scope for competition from a variety of different channels, in different hands, being transmitted from satellites such as Astra which use telecommunications rather than broadcasting frequencies.
Because of the opportunities to set up new competitive non-domestic satellite services, we see no reason to limit newspaper investment in them. BSkyB has no monopoly in this area, and it is inconceivable that any single operator could ever acquire such a monopoly. The same cannot however be said for a domestic satellite service licensee who could easily control all of the United Kingdom's DBS channels, as was the case with the former BSB.
If, despite these considerations, we were to go along with the demands of those who would wish to restrict newspaper investment in non-domestic satellite services, that would mean that News International
1182
would be required to divest its shareholding in BSkyB from the current level of 48 per cent. to 20 per cent. This presupposes that it could find a ready buyer for the remaining shareholding. It is by no means apparent that someone else would be prepared to take on the extensive financial commitment which the current shareholders of BSkyB have already undertaken. It could very possibly mean, therefore, that the BSkyB enterprise would fail, resulting in a reduction of services available to viewers, and particularly to those who have acquired "squarials" or dish aerials with which to receive these services. Furthermore, this would jeopardise the 1,000 or so jobs which BSkyB has already created in this country. We cannot believe that this would be a remotely sensible outcome; and I cannot see whose interests would thereby be served.
My noble friend Lord Stockton advanced an argument during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill—and he may be intending to do so again this evening—that ownership restrictions should apply to BSkyB if it achieves a certain number of viewers. But this, it seems to me, would be to penalise success. What would we be saying? It would be that if the channel continues to lose money, we do not care who owns it, but if it were to become successful, then it could not continue with its current ownership structure. What incentive would there be in such circumstances for the current owners to continue with the enterprise?
The order covers two other areas. It provides that public telecommunications operators like BT will not be permitted to have a controlling interest in Channel 3 or 5 licences nor in national radio or domestic satellite licences. I think it is generally accepted that BT, with its dominant position in the telecommunications market, should not also have the ability to provide these services. Finally, the order regulates the ownership of radio stations through a points scheme. All stations, with their associated channels, will be awarded points on the basis of their audience reach. No one may own stations which correspond to more than 15 per cent. of the total number of points in the system, subject to the overriding limit of 20 such channels contained in the Broadcasting Act itself.
The provisions in the order represent a sensible and practicable framework for regulatory control over the services for which the ITC and Radio Authority will have responsibility. They were approved in another place on 24th April. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Reay.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for outlining the main effects of the order. Last year the Broadcasting Bill occupied a great deal of time in both Houses of Parliament. It was then a bad Bill and it is now a bad Act. Noble Lords will recall that when it came to this House many amendments, mainly government amendments, were passed. More than 1,000 amendments were brought forward while the Bill was passing through this House. The reason why there were so many government amendments is that Ministers realised, and were forced to realise, just how seriously flawed their initial

1183
concept of the Bill was. The established view is that the Bill was rather better by the time it was enacted and had been through this House than it was at the beginning.
Perhaps I shall be forgiven for digressing for a moment to say that a blot on the Bill was firmly installed in this House. I refer to the ridiculous, unnecessary, clumsy and unhealthy additions on impartiality, a subject that was already covered in the Bill. I can understand why the Government accepted the provision but I think that it was quite crazy. If there had been a vote there is no doubt that those who put forward those rather silly ideas would have been defeated and they would not now be part of legislation.
The Act remains flawed for the reasons that were debated last year both here and in another place. Now we are discussing an order to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s on part of the Act. The Minister has explained the order so clearly that I do not think it is necessary to go over the ground again. That would be most tedious. However, I should like to comment on one or two of the points arising from the order.
The first concerns the Channel 3 ownership rules and the dangers of concentration of ownership and threats to regional identity and production. Secondly, there is the whole issue of cross-media ownership; that is, Sky Broadcasting. Many of us who may not normally be of a suspicious turn of mind found that the timing of that takeover was miraculously apt for News International. It occurred after the Bill had passed through Parliament. If it had taken place during the passage of the Bill, there would certainly have been, if not a different outcome, a great deal more fuss and opposition to it.
During the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill on 11 th July 1990 (Hansard co1.302), the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the Government accepted that no one should be allowed to own two regional Channel 3 franchises which are contiguous, where both were large, and they proposed to implement those supplementary rules in subordinate legislation at the same time as implementing the "no contiguity" and "no two large regional Channel 3 franchise" rules. However, under the order the contiguity rule will apply only during the bidding process for Channel 3 licences. We have now been informed, but had already read, that after the bidding that rule will not apply. To compensate for the loss of that rule, the number of areas defined as large has been increased from the Government's originally suggested six to nine. Nothing of that nature was discussed during the Bill's passage. Neither House had a chance to discuss questions which are of great importance: contiguity and the change in the number and size of areas of the franchises.
The Government's argument, as we have heard, is that the contiguity rule might be counterproductive as it could prevent combinations of ownership which could offer scope for sensible economies of scale. It was precisely the dangers inherent in companies imposing economies of scale to the detriment of quality and regional identity to which we objected in
1184
Committee. Objections came from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, whose experience in the field is well known, from myself and from other noble Lords throughout the House.
Your Lordships will recall that in Committee I supported the amendment to limit ownership to one licence per person. I said:
"Owning more than one licence completely dilutes the concept of Channel 3 as a regionally based system, with each company having its roots in its own region".—[Official Report,11/7/90; col. 299.]
That concept could be severely undermined by the company which, after the auction round, obtained a non-controlling interest in a second franchise, followed by a 20 per cent. interest in a third company and a 5 per cent. interest in a fourth.
Will the Minister tell us why the Government have reneged on the original version of their contiguity rule and what action they plan to take if their "penny-farthing system", as it is known, of ownership threatens the regional identity of smaller licensed areas? At the moment there is a great danger that, apart from news and current affairs programmes, the regional ingredient could be tiny.
The rules on cross-media ownership—the second area upon which I wish to comment—contained in the order are flawed by the Government's original failure to include British Sky Broadcasting under the provisions. In Committee I moved an amendment to include non-domestic satellite services within the cross-media rules laid down under the Act. I said:
"In a genuine democracy it cannot be right for the same individual to own both a substantial number of national newspapers and national televisions channels which can influence the same people"—
they are at least beamed at them. I quoted paragraph 6.48 on page 31 of the White Paper, and said:
"clear rules will also be needed which impose limits on concentration of ownership and on excessive cross-media ownership, in order to keep the market open for newcomers and to prevent any tendency towards editorial uniformity or domination by a few groups".—[Official Report,11/7/90; col. 306.]
Cross-media ownership makes it impossible to carry that out. It is known that the Independent Television Commission wanted the Government to consider more carefully whether Mr. Murdoch's News International should be required to reduce its 50 per cent. holding in British Sky Broadcasting to 20 per cent. in line with non-EC and cross-media ownership rules for terrestrial and domestic satellite television. The Minister has acknowledged that. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to inform the House why the ITC's original advice was ignored.
Figures published this week show that clearly BSkyB is winning a 26 per cent. share of viewing in those homes with both satellite and terrestrial television. This proportion will inevitably increase as more homes acquire satellite television. Yet with non-domestic satellite television that is not possible; it is not subject even to the lightest of regulatory touches. Regional production does not enter into it at all. We are not convinced of the safeguards for regional production and feel that they are likely to be far less than the great promises that were made.
The Labour Party's position is clear. It is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be

1185
asked to report on all aspects of media and cross-media ownership. The next Labour Government will consult the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and will legislate on the basis of its proposals well before the new Channel 3 regional and national licences become due for renewal. We shall insist that licences are bid for again in open competition, with more stringent quality and stricter regional programme commitments.
I conclude by referring to radio. Will the Minister advise the House on how many companies the Government expect will acquire a maximum of 20 local radio stations? We on our side suspect that this is the pattern that will develop with costs and programming being shared. If that happens, we are afraid that the local identity of many radio stations will be lost.
We remain opposed to the philosophy of this legislation and the order which is part of it. However, another place has voted for it and so, reluctantly and sadly, I shall not divide the House.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the order and for explaining its implications and the arguments in favour of its provisions. I find myself in broad agreement with what has been said by the noble Baroness in her response. In particular, I agree that the whole question of cross-media ownership and ownership in general should be put before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for its consideration.
The debate on which we are engaged is a postscript to those long discussions we have had ever since the White Paper was published. It is also indeed an obsequy to the whole Bill since we shall not vote on it. All we are doing is to express either our appreciation or our disappointment at the order before your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords will remember that the premise and the promise which the White Paper offered was that the new broadcasting system would afford greater variety and would operate with a lighter touch in connection with the regulation of broadcasting. In fact as a result of the Broadcasting Bill we shall obtain lower standards, and there is not the slightest chance that a lighter touch in regulation will come about.
On the contrary, a whole battery of regulatory bodies, the like of which we have not seen before, has been created, including the expensive, bureaucratic, unnecessary and censorious Broadcasting Standards Council for which there is no justification. This battery of regulation which is the visible symbol of the lighter touch will cost, according to Liz Forgan, no less than£21 million a year. It must be said that a proliferation of competing and overlapping agencies is a formula for extravagant maladministration. The Government have presented us at the end of these years of discussion with the Broadcasting Bill, of which this order is the culmination.
Meanwhile I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Reay, devote three sentences to radio—at least I calculated that he devoted three sentences to that
1186
subject. Is that an indication of the importance which the Government attach to radio? If that is the case, it is a sad commentary on their values. As a first response to what he said, I believe the proposals which the Government have set out for radio will result in the control of local radio being handed over to large units and the disappearance of community radio, as has happened in France.
I now turn, as the noble Baroness did, to the central element of the Bill, which is the Government's interpretation of the contiguity rule. I repeat that both in this Chamber and in another place our discussions concentrated on the important contribution which Channel 3 could make to regional television. The response to that concern by the then Minister in another place and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in this Chamber was to give a clear undertaking that the contiguity rule would be maintained. Now today we have before us an order which is nothing other than a reversal of that undertaking. What the Government have provided is a way round the contiguity rule after three years. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. It is a situation which we have not been able to debate before. I ask myself and your Lordships whether we would have passed the Bill unamended if these rules had been in front of us at the time. I cannot believe that we would have done so.
But if the arrangements for ensuring the diversity of ownership of television seem to us inadequate, those which apply to radio are far worse, and the prospects of concentration of ownership are far greater where the allocation is left almost entirely to the market and to the tender mercies of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The proposal that one company should be allowed to own up to 20 local stations will mean that the prospect of a wide diversity of ownership in radio will be sharply reduced. The ownership of 20 stations will, I suspect, become the pattern. Viable local radio stations will be snapped up and community radio—which is a totally different matter—will have small chance of survival.
Let us take the example of Radio Borders which has just won the Sony award for the best local radio station of the year. It is run on a shoestring from premises which have in effect been provided by the local authority. It has a 68 per cent. audience penetration and because of its success it will be vulnerable to takeover. That is characteristic.
Finally, I come to the question, which we cannot avoid, of BSkyB. First, there is a small matter which I should like to raise with the noble Lord, and I shall be interested in his response. As the noble Baroness pointed out, within 48 hours of the Bill having received Royal Assent the deal between Sky and BSB was put together—a very effective way of cocking a snook at Parliament. On 20th December the IBA agreed that BSB's licence to broadcast would not be revoked until an alternative use of Marco Polo had been found.
As communicated to consumers by the media, it was suggested that there would be no material change to the BSB service for another two years. That was not the reality. BSB's licence could be terminated at any time up to the end of 1992. Furthermore, Sky wrote to

1187
the retail trade requesting that BSB equipment should be put back on sale. That equipment, if sold after 20th December, would not be covered by Sky's offer to exchange reception free of charge. As one retailer remarked, "It is like persuading someone to buy a television without telling them that it is likely to blow up within six months".
I feel that consumers should have better protection than they have received and it is the Government's duty to provide that protection. That is deeply and profoundly unsatisfactory behaviour by an organisation which sought and received substantial broadcasting concessions from the Government in the Broadcasting Act. I hope that the Minister will respond to that query, which is an important one.
In the order another opportunity has been missed to deal with the anomaly of BSkyB. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it was an opportunity to make Mr. Murdoch reduce his holding in the whole operation.
In the course of the debate on the order in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said (at col. 1149 of Commons Hansard for 24th April):
"We were, however, anxious to avoid circumstances in which licences covering an unacceptably large part of the country were held in common ownership".
Later in the debate, in the same column, he said:
"Simply to have dropped the contiguity rule while retaining six large areas would, however, have left the way open for combinations of ownership which could give an unhealthy dominance to a single company".
In opening this debate the noble Lord used much the same language.
I understand the Under-Secretary and the noble Lord to have been speaking about the undesirability not of monopolies—that is not the word that has been used—but of undue concentrations of ownership. We on these Benches agree that undue concentrations of ownership, be they in television, radio or newspapers, are highly undesirable. That, I understood, was what lay behind the series of stipulations in the Act and in the order. We may not think that they go far enough but they are aimed at preventing concentrations of ownership which could give undue dominance. The fact that non-domestic satellite services have, in the words of the Under-Secretary, "developed under different rules" does not alter the fact that undue concentration of ownership in the media, both in television and in the press, is undesirable. It does not reduce the undesirability of the prospect of undue dominance, except apparently in the view of Her Majesty's Government.
When we come to BSkyB and what is unquestionably a concentration of ownership, the prospect of undue dominance apparently ceases to matter. When he answers the debate, the noble Lord must address the question of whether the principle of a concentration of ownership is more important than the fact that a system grew up under slightly different rules. That response makes no sense and it can be made to make sense only if Mr. Murdoch is treated as
1188
a special case and a special friend who has received special treatment. That is what has happened, and it is little short of a scandal.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, perhaps I may direct your Lordships' attention to Part IV, Article 15(1) and 15(3) of the order. When we last addressed the subject of cross-media ownership I spoke, perhaps at too great length and certainly not to the pleasure of a number of Members of your Lordships' House. Indeed, when I was faced with the combined forces of my noble friends Lord Whitelaw, Lord St. John of Fawsley, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Beloff and Lord Colwyn—who alone is in his place tonight—to say nothing of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I began to wonder whether I had got the wrong end of the aerial. However, the presence in their ranks of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, reassured me that, even if I was not on the side of the big battalions, I was and remain on the side of the angels.
I should resist the temptation to say, "I told you so", but I have seldom been able to resist temptation, particularly when it is also a case of succumbing to both justice and personal satisfaction. It is quite clear that, even as we debated the issue on Report, a deal was being done to remove the only licensed domestic satellite operator from the control of the law. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the Minister, was as much in the dark over that deal, or double deal, as your Lordships' House, but, when the announcement of the merger of Sky and BSB was disclosed before the ink on the Royal Assent to the Bill was dry, I could not help wondering whether the remarks of the noble Lords whom I mentioned should have been couched in quite such generous terms.
When someone from my office inquired this afternoon of the licensing department of the ITC why it was that News International, (de facto,if not de jure) with a 48 per cent. holding in BSkyB, falls outside the scope of Part IV of the order, the reply, which may be of interest to noble and learned Lords, was that the Act refers to licences and BSB—the domestic satellite service—only had a contract with the IBA at the time. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to shed some legal light on that murky distinction when he replies.
This time I do not intend to run the risk of being accused by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw or any spokesperson for News International of being the front for a witch-hunt on Sky. I reiterate what I said in earlier debates: I am second to none in my admiration for Mr. Murdoch and his achievements as an entrepreneur and businessman. However, admiration for achievement and success in the past does not bring with it automatic and uncritical support for the present nor unqualified support for the future.
I do not believe that the position of Mr. Murdoch as a major cross-media owner, whatever the legal niceties of shareholdings or the location of his multifarious enterprises, is in the long-term interests of the British press, British broadcasting or the British people. I do not blame Mr. Murdoch for setting out to achieve such a position of pre-eminence in the mass

1189
media. Nor do I criticise him for his success in going so far in achieving that ambition. Given the same opportunity, every businessman would seize it. But I criticise the Government for wilfully failing to recognise the national interest and neglecting their responsibility to protect that interest. I know that those are strong sentiments, but I feel strongly and I feel equally strongly that it is my duty to express my feelings.
We should also spare some consideration for the many independent producers who were looking to 10 or so satellite channels as outlets for their creative talents as an alternative to the BBC and Channel 4. These providers employ quite as many people as BSkyB. I quite understand that, with eventually only five BSkyB channels and the difficulties facing that company (still running at a loss of £6 million a week), commercial considerations must be paramount. But where is the diversity of 108 channels so much vaunted by noble, Lords during the Committee stage of the Bill?
Nowhere has the need for stricter sanction over non-domestic satellites been more apparent than in the conduct of BSB and Sky following their merger. I can understand the need to rationalise the number of loss-making channels. However, the lack of cross-media control over Astra services and their non-domestic controllers has restricted the weapons available to the IBA and ITC in responding to BSB's breach of contract. It may also have contributed to a cynical attitude taken by BSkyB toward consumers, retailers and manufacturers, an attitude that falls well short of the conduct that we should expect as the price of being granted such a valuable piece of legislative exemption.
There are two points of which the House should be aware. First, retailers, including those under contract to BSB, only found out about the merger from the 9 o'clock news. The first communication that they received from BSB or Sky came six days (five retailing days) later. Secondly, while the media were announcing shortly before last Christmas that BSkyB and the IBA had agreed to a two-year maintenance of Marco Polo services, there were other developments that were not mentioned. On the same day, retailers who shortly after the merger were told to withdraw BSB reception equipment from sale—rightly, following the announcement that BSB channels would be transferred to Astra—were told by BSkyB to put them back in their shop windows. Not only that—no sales made after that date, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out, would be subject to the exchange offer available to other BSB subscribers. The public PR did not mention that two years was the most than. BSB system owners could expect. The ITC can revoke the BSB's Marco Polo rights by giving three months' notice at any time from next month.
The conduct of BSkyB has fallen short. Near redundant equipment should only have been put back on sale if it could be exchanged like other BSB systems when Marco Polo services ceased. In any event, the request to resume sales, which has a strong flavour of BSkyB lawyers seeking to impose pressure on retailers to clear their stockrooms, should not have been made
1190
since it has exposed them to substantial loss of goodwill from customers. It is scarcely surprising that most retailers have refused to fleece the customer as would have been wished and have kept BSB systems in their boxes.
I hope that we shall now accept that we are paying the price for granting such special concessions. It is with that one great reservation that I welcome to an extent the provisions of this order, as I did the broad thrust of the Bill.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I understand that the issue with regard to the retailers and what is now BSkyB is a matter of legal proceedings and should not be discussed as it is sub judice. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, took a somewhat apocalyptic view with regard to safeguards for the retailers. They ought to know that the protection under the sale of goods law is more than enough protection for consumers. If a retailer sells goods that are not fit for the purpose, they have perfectly good recourse against him. That is why the retailers are keeping the goods in boxes. It is not because of any instructions from interested parties.
The first argument against the order took us on a long trip down memory lane, escorted charmingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It was based on the claim that the law should be consistent with regard to non-domestic satellite broadcasting. Since newspaper cross-ownership of Channel 3 ITV companies—strangely called terrestrial ITV companies—is limited to 20 per cent., it should similarly be limited to 20 per cent. for satellite channels. It is often referred to as the level playing field argument. I do not consider it a good argument.
There is a substantial difference between Channel 3 licences and satellite licences. Channel 3 licences were once described by the late Lord Thomson of Fleet as a licence to print money. That is because those who hold the ITV franchise are able to gain immediate access to the totality of the viewing audience, using scarce terrestrial channels.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I apologise for interrupting. I speak from recollection. I believe that there is nothing in the Act which gives the freedom which the noble Lord has been advocating to any other non-domestic satellite. The only exception is News International.
Lord Morris: My Lords, so far as I understand, there is no other non-domestic satellite.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, there could be in the future. Usually Acts of Parliament lay down certain rules taking into account what may happen. But the Government have not done that. The exception is a personal exception.
Lord Morris: My Lords, with respect, that argument is wrong. If another operator decided to set up a satellite broadcasting system beamed into this country in competition with the present providers, it would be monstrous to suggest that any government would have a different rule for the new entrant from that for the old entrant. I would argue against that

1191
very strongly. There is an apparent difference between the treatment of the terrestrial services—the ITV licensees and the non-domestic satellite licensees. With respect, that is a completely different issue.
As my noble friend Lord Stockton rightly said, the new satellite channels may with merit be described as a licence to lose money. These new channels must build their audience in a manner akin to the Chinese water torture; namely, drip by drip, customer by customer. They enjoy no immediate access to the viewing audience but must build up their networks one household at a time. That is no level playing field for competition between the new channels and the ITV channels. It cannot be right to impose the same ownership rules on the two types of broadcasting. The only way that satellite services will build themselves up is through the patient investment by those who believe that one day they may profit from such investment. Frankly, there are not yet many who have been willing to place such bets.
The real power in broadcasting does not lie with Mr. Murdoch but with the BBC. Measured by revenue, the BBC is the largest medium enterprise in Europe. It enjoys monopoly access to the licence fee. It has half of all the terrestrial television broadcasting spectrum at its disposal and it has the lion's share of radio frequencies. It employs 27,000 people.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I was unaware that this order affects the BBC.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am simply comparing the position with regard to the soi-disant monopoly of the BBC and the so-called monopoly of one satellite broadcasting provider.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how many newspapers the BBC owns?
Lord Morris: My Lords, if one calls the Radio Times a newspaper, it owns one. I would not call it that. The BBC is one of the largest publishers of consumer magazines in Britain, but that is a narrow argument.
The other major theme related to the question of monopoly. If Mr. Murdoch has a monopoly it is of a curious character. His satellite services have reached only 10 per cent. of the population and face vigorous competition from ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC in addition to competition on the same satellite from others who are riding on his coat tails. The merger of Sky and BSB has not changed the situation. Indeed, the merger was necessary because the main satellite contenders were bearing losses on an unbearable scale.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am prepared to see the validity of the argument that holding 10 per cent. of a total market cannot be construed as a monopoly. However, if British Rail had 10 per cent. of the transport market it would still have a monopoly of the railway market.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I ought to deliver the noble Earl a copy of the competition law and the Fair Trading Act. He will find that the standards imposed
1192
on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and on the Office of Fair Trading bear no relation to his understanding of the law on this matter. Indeed, the noble Earl's interest—apparently it is a devotion—to the conspiracy theory is charmingly naive and totally fanciful.
Neither BSB courted Sky—they would not speak to each other—nor did Sky court BSB. The merger was the result of a highly intelligent, independent analyst who made it plain severally and not jointly that it was in the national interest. That was the initiative and the nonsensical conspiracy theory is a figment of politicians' imaginations.
We must be careful when throwing around terms such as "monopoly" without being certain of the facts. All responsible economists—and I am certainly not one—will agree that the relevant market is a broadcasting market. There is no such thing as a monopoly of the satellite market which is just a part of the broader television market.
As regards television, I cannot see anything malign about Mr. Murdoch's works. On the contrary, the spectre of a malevolent media mogul—noble Lords will ignore the alliteration—manipulating public opinion ignores all the evidence of Sky's behaviour and the safeguards in the Broadcasting Act itself. Recently, Sky has demonstrated only too clearly the excellence of its news coverage. I considered that its reporting of the Gulf conflict was exceptionally good. We have been down this road before and it is too late tonight to further the argument. I support the order with enthusiasm.
10 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am reluctant to elongate the debate but I must take a few minutes to welcome the order. This is the eighth occasion on which the efforts of Mr. Rupert Murdoch to establish a satellite broadcasting network have been debated in your Lordships' House and in the other place. I wish to comment briefly on the order in support of News International.
There are those who say that some noble Lords are out of touch with the realities of the broadcasting industry. However, the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Stockton put the lie to any such allegation. It is clear to me that the noble Baroness and her noble friends are fully in tune with the practices of the broadcasting industry. When in the real world of broadcasting there is nothing fresh to offer the viewer or the listener it is time to schedule the repeat of a programme from the past.
Having nothing new to say about the new Broadcasting Act, satellite television generally or Mr. Murdoch in particular, the noble Baroness and other speakers have offered us a re-run of their previous arguments. The passage of time has not been kind to those arguments. Throughout the protracted debates about the rights and wrongs of allowing Mr. Murdoch to invest in satellite television, one important point

1193
has remained stubbornly obscure. Are there any alternative suggestions? Do noble Lords have any new ideas?
We keep hearing how awful it is that Mr. Murdoch is allowed to invest his money in establishing Sky Television. However, we have not been offered any alternative proposition. If Mr. Murdoch is deemed not to be a fit and proper person to risk his money in that venture, who should take his place?
If satellite television is cut off from its main source of finance and management expertise, there will be no further investment in satellite services. The viewer will have less choice. There will be fewer jobs in broadcasting. Attractive new programme services such as "Sky News" will perish. The development of subscription television will be halted and the UK will be left behind in the broader European development of innovative television services. Those results will be achieved by following the advice given by some noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the point about a monopoly in cross-media ownership is that it is a combination of newspapers and satellite television. Mr. Murdoch could divest himself of his newspaper interests and still retain his television interests.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I believe that the order is specific in that it deals with a non-terrestrial service coming from outside this country.
The order before us this evening is good. It recognises that satellite television is a high risk business. It makes it possible for brave entrepreneurs to risk their fortunes to establish the business. I support the order.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have been asked questions which I shall do my best to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked why the Government have changed their original approach on contiguity. My right honourable friend the former Home Secretary announced on 13th June 1989 that it would be possible for one person to own two regional Channel 3 licence areas provided that they were not both large or contiguous.
Our underlying policy objective was to ensure that separate regional identity was preserved and that regional programming obligations should be fully discharged while allowing for sensible economies of scale. I explained that in my speech. During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, regional requirements were considerably enhanced. Since the Bill received Royal Assent, the ITC announced that it would expect 80 per cent. of all regional programmes to be made in the respective licence area. On that basis, my right honourable friend concluded that the contiguity rule was unnecessary in order to preserve separate regional identity. However, upon considering the representations which he received on his announcement on 4th December, my right honourable friend concluded that it would be in the best interests of regional identity if ownership of contiguous licence areas were prevented during the bidding stage but permitted thereafter, albeit for the first two years at the discretion of the ITC.
1194
The noble Baroness asked me how many companies will acquire 20 radio stations. That is a matter to be determined by the market and not by the Government. I should not wish to offer a view on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me about the radio ownership rules. I did not intend to give the impression that we underrate the importance of radio. I was merely trying to save the time of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I should not have been so considerate.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the point scheme in the order will encourage large holdings of radio stations. On the contrary, the rule that no one can own stations whose total points value exceeds 15 per cent. of the number of points in the system as a whole will ensure that dominant radio groups cannot develop.
The noble Lord also asked a question with regard to BSB's equipment. I am given to understand that the suggestion that BSB equipment be put back on sale following the merger was subsequently overtaken by the later undertaking by BSkyB that any equipment acquired by 20th December 1990 would be replaced. By then it was clear that the former BSB contract was to be terminated by the ITC. We do not believe that anyone would have acquired a squarial after that date in ignorance of that fact.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, I am informed that BSkyB were attempting to persuade retailers to restock with BSB equipment after 20th December. That is the issue.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said. By that time it was clear that the former contract was to be terminated and everyone should have been aware of that fact.
The noble Lord made play with what he considered to be an inconsistency in our policy towards concentration of ownership. There is a substantial difference between co-ownership of, on the one hand, two large Channel 3 areas which in their respective areas would be the dominant independent television broadcaster for many years to come, and on the other, News International's cross-holding interest, particularly in connection with its shareholding in BSkyB, which is certainly not a dominant independent television broadcaster.
News International holds a 45 per cent. shareholding in five Astra channels. There are already 32 Astra channels available and the potential for many more. That is quite different from the situation in which two independent terrestrial channels—ITV and Channel 4—are available.
That takes me on to one more point raised by the noble Baroness—that the Act contains a personal exception for News International. That is not so. There are other non-domestic satellite licensees already in existence; for example, W. H. Smith. All benefit in exactly the same way from the ownership provisions in the Act and the order and are subject to the same restrictions. I have nothing further to add.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.