Lords Sitting of 15 February 1995

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

Lord McConnell
The Right Honourable Robert William Brian McConnell, having been created Baron McConnell, of Lisburn in the County of Antrim, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Grey of Naunton and the Lord Cooke of Islandreagh.

Hospitals: Emergency Admissions
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the causes of the recent rise in the number of emergency admissions to hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we do not know the reasons why there is an increase in emergency admissions. Studies looking at the causes are under way and more detailed information will be available later in the year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she considering the report by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts? Is she aware that that report has already suggested that it may be part of the operation of the internal market which is leading to the very rapid rise in emergency admissions? For example, are GP fund-holders bypassing routine admissions in order to get fast-track admissions and taking the emergency route? Does she agree that once patients are in hospital, managers are under such financial pressure to improve what is called their patient throughput that they are discharging people too early and they are re-admitted as emergencies?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no firm evidence about that at all. That is why we are running the research studies, five o l which are due to take place. We shall be working with all the associations, including the joint consultative committee and the Confederation of Royal Medical Colleges as well as the Trust Federation and the national association.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if no one else wishes to intervene, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on this point. If she does not yet accept the findings of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, does she accept the findings of the clinical advisory group of the Department of Health, which also suggests that the commercial pressures of the
690
internal market are leading to that extraordinary rise of 13 per cent. excess emergency admissions this year compared with last year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have already said to the noble Baroness that there is no firm evidence. That is why we are running the research projects. We want to find out the reasons. There are a number of commentators who put forward suppositions, such as an increase in asthma cases. At the moment there is no definition of an emergency case. We shall also be looking at that. Overall, it is quite interesting that GP referral rates to A&E departments vary between three and fourfold. We shall be considering all those conundrums.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the complication rate for those patients who are treated on a day-case basis is exactly half the complication rate for those who stay in hospital longer than one day?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the pattern of medicine is changing very fast indeed. Increasingly operations are being carried out on a day-case basis, rather than have the patients admitted to hospital.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whatever may be the reasons for the increase, it is not necessarily a bad thing? Does she further agree that it may indicate a greater flexibility in responses from the service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I mentioned the GP referral rate. I believe that as waiting times are slashed and people wait less time to be admitted, GPs clearly feel that it is worth while to send patients to hospital to be investigated and sometimes admitted.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister agree to look at another reason for the increase in emergency admissions? Could it have something to do with the lack of community care that exists in some parts of our country, so that elderly people become emergency admissions when that normally would not have been the case?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not have evidence on that matter. That is why we are running the five pilot schemes. It is interesting that not only has the number of emergency admissions increased but so have the referral rates to the London Ambulance Service and ambulance services around the country. The increase in their calls was 8.5 per cent. last year alone. There is something rather strange going on and we need to find out why.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept the logic of the situation? Will she accept that there has been a great increase in the turnover in London hospitals, with a diminution in the number of beds? That has meant a much shorter stay for each patient. Is she aware that many people may well have been discharged

691
rather too soon and, therefore, have had to be readmitted in a hurry? That is certainly the experience of many of my colleagues in primary health care in London.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not agree with that supposition at all. In fact, we know that the number of patients being treated is increasing. There always seems to be some kind of correlation between the number of patients treated and the number of patients admitted through accident and emergency departments. We intend to find out the reasons why.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the results of the examination her department intends to undertake will be reported to the House?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.

Historic Buildings: VAT on Repairs
2.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual yield of VAT levied on the repair of historic buildings, including Grade I churches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the information is not available. Repairs to all buildings have been liable to the standard rate of VAT since 1973. The VAT paid on all repairs is charged by registered builders, who periodically declare to Customs and Excise the total VAT charged by them to all their customers without further analysis.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that not particularly informative reply, perhaps I may disclose an interest. I am the churchwarden of a beautiful church in the country now under repair. Is my noble friend aware that the amount raised by VAT on this kind of work is trifling in proportion to the national revenue, but harsh in its operation on those who are desperately trying to raise money to repair and keep beautiful buildings in good order? Is there not an overwhelming case for waiving VAT on this kind of transaction altogether?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that there is an overwhelming case, as my noble friend Lord Mackay made clear on another occasion when he repeated that my right honourable friend had made clear that he has no plans for a reduced rate of VAT on anything other than domestic fuel and power. However, we see considerable scope for providing support for historic churches or other heritage buildings. Government funding for the repair of English historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage and this year English Heritage will receive over £105 million in government grants from the taxpayer. Of that, English
692
Heritage has been allocated an estimated £44 million in grant assistance, of which £10.5 will go to assist church restoration and £4.3 million for cathedrals.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the European Community's sixth directive the Government have powers if they wish to use them? In the same way that lotteries and gaming institutions are exempt from VAT, it is open to the Minister to order that the tax on church repairs be stopped, if he wishes to do so. Does the Minister want to do so or not?
Lord Henley: My Lords, under the Sixth VAT Directive, to which the noble Lord referred, my right honourable friend has powers, under the list of suppliers of goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT, to apply a reduced rate of not less than 5 per cent. on specific items. That includes supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing. It would not go as far as a reduced rate on churches because they do not come under the heading of housing or, for that matter, housing provided as part of the social policy. If we wanted to amend that list of suppliers in the Sixth VAT Directive at Annex 2, we would have to go to ECOFIN and unanimity would be required.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is a remarkable interchange, in that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, does not blame the European Community for the position? Does not that show the strength of the case which has occurred to some of us for a long time past that one can, without paying VAT, build the ugliest building it is possible to design but one cannot repair the most beautiful building without paying it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe I made clear earlier, if it was an alteration, the VAT would be zero rated; it has been zero rated since 1984. As regards the first point, like the noble Lord I found it a remarkable intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. However, on this occasion, rather than attacking the European Commission, he is attacking my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I too have a vested interest, in that I am chairman of an appeal for my local church in the country. Does not my noble friend agree that it is ludicrous that historic churches receive a grant from English Heritage, yet when that grant is used, the expenditure is subject to 17.5 per cent. VAT? Surely that must be changed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see a case for further reduced rates of VAT other than that for domestic fuel and power. As I made clear also, we provide help through grants and other help which we can provide to charities or charitable donations. There is also the possibility of help through the National Heritage Memorial Fund. We do not see a reason for making a specific exemption in this case.
The Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's comments on English Heritage, does he

693
accept that more is paid out by the churches in VAT than is received by them from English Heritage? Is that a satisfactory position?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that case, as I made clear in my first Answer. The information is not available. I am aware that, when we had another debate on the subject on 31st January this year, the right reverend Prelate's colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, made that suggestion. As we made clear on that occasion, there is support from English Heritage and also help from the taxpayer in many other ways.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord clear up some confusion? My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is seldom wrong on matters European. He told us that the Government have the power to vary the VAT rate on church repairs, yet the Minister said that we do not have the power unilaterally to do so and we would have to go to ECOFIN and obtain a unanimous decision to reduce or revoke VAT on church buildings. Can he tell us what the truth is? Will he also say whether, if the Government had the power to reduce VAT, they would do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as always, I was right and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was wrong. I shall send the noble Lord a copy of Annex 2 to the Sixth VAT Directive, to which I referred, which is the list of the supply of goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT. That would then be a decision for national parliaments. The list includes a number of different items and, on buildings, Item 9 mentions the supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of social policy. I do not believe that that covers churches.
As regards the wider issue, as I made clear, my right honourable friend does not see a case for a reduced rate of VAT. Therefore, even if such a power should be granted by an amendment to the list, he would not seek at present to make use of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does it not strike my noble friend as a little odd that a lottery should be free of tax but the repair of an ancient and historic church is taxed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, my right honourable friend does not see a case for further complicating the VAT structure by bringing in reduced rates in this case.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, how can my noble friend deny that a church is a house? Is he not aware that most of us were brought up to believe that a church is a house with a rather distinguished Resident?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point made by my noble friend, but I do not believe that in law a church is defined as housing provided as part of the social policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the right reverend prelate made the assertion that the amount paid out by the Church in respect of VAT is exceeded by the amount which it receives from English Heritage. The
694
Minister disputed that. If he does not know the amount of VAT that has been paid, as he said in the earlier part of our proceedings, how does he know that the right reverend Prelate is wrong?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope I did not say that I disputed the figure. I simply said that I could not accept it.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as the Minister can see that VAT is very unpopular in this case, will the Government put their mind to thinking of new ways to help people pay for listed historic buildings and churches?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is obviously a matter for the Department of National Heritage. As I made clear, a number of sources of funds are available for assistance in heritage matters: support from English Heritage, similar arrangements in Scotland, support offered through the tax system for charitable donations, and so on. I could go on.
Lord Peston: My Lords, when the Minister answered his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter by saying that the information was not available—and I believe that those were his exact words—did he mean that it was not available because it could not be made available, or was it not available because the Treasury has not done the work and made it available? The reason for asking the question follows what the right reverend Prelate asked. It would help all of us to gain a purchase on the question if we could relate the amount of money raised on VAT on repairs to the amount of grants given by English Heritage. It is difficult to make sense of the matter unless we have a numerical balance. Is there any way in which the Treasury could carry out the work and give us the answer, or is that impossible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the figures are not available for the reasons I gave in the second part of my original Answer. The registered builders who periodically declare to the Customs the total VAT charged by them to all their customers do so without any further analysis.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I must declare a similar interest to that of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Does the Minister agree that the virtual financial bankruptcy of the Church of England means that we shall increasingly find that the funds which parishes have previously been able to devote to the repair of churches will have to be siphoned off by the diocese to keep the show on the road? What is really needed is an increase in order of magnitude, or perhaps two orders of magnitude, in the money given to English 'Heritage for that purpose. Is that not a much better way than introducing further aberrations into the VAT system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support for not bringing further aberrations into the VAT system. I would rather not comment on the state of the Church's finances, but as regards the

695
physical state of the churches, I remind my noble friend of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said in our previous debate:
"Taken overall, most of our ancient churches are in a better state of repair than since the Middle Ages and the quality of the work is such that it will last for generations".—[Official Report, 31/1/95; col. 1399.]

Breast Cancer Screening
3.6 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider reducing the interval between mammography tests from three years to two for women between 50 and 65 years old.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are currently funding research into the possible benefits of screening women for breast cancer more frequently than the present interval of three years. The results will be available in 1996.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging reply. Is it still the case that in this country the incidence of that kind of cancer is very high in comparison with other countries in Europe, particularly for the group of women above the age of 50? Increasing the amount of screening available to that age group will surely increase the detection rate which will help not only in the social benefits which we hope for and expect but also in the economic benefits.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are looking at the matter; but the screening programme was set up in the light of the Forrest report, which was well researched, and we implemented the first screening programme in Europe for that cancer. Now we are looking at the views of other bodies which have said that things have changed and they think perhaps it is time we reviewed the Forrest committee's recommendations. However, before we invest in a huge new programme, we wish to be absolutely sure that it has the benefits we seek.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, what value does my noble friend place on screening in terms of reducing mortality rates in breast cancer? Can she say how many mammography facilities are available and operating at present in the UK? I am aware that she has already said that no central records are kept; but surely if we are considering stepping up the screening programme, we should be aware of what the capacity of the system is. Does the Minister agree that the selection should be based far more on the symptomatic way of selecting people rather than by age?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that would be difficult. At the moment we have a mass screening programme and we know that it is effective in terms of saving lives. So we want to continue with the
696
programme. As to the number of mammography units, I do not have the figure with me this afternoon; but if it is available, I shall give it to my noble friend.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, in view of the increasing incidence of breast cancer diagnosed in women over 65, may I ask whether the Government have any plans to extend the screening programme to women over that age?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, again the programme was established in the light of the Forrest committee's report. But the advisory committee on breast cancer screening is looking again at the age factor. We are also aware of some small pilot schemes being run to test whether women who are offered the opportunity take up the invitation. In the past there was anxiety that women over 64 would not do so. If they seek the screening, then they may have it on request; but that is not a matter of course.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to say how pleased I am that in both the Minister's replies this afternoon she has indicated how much research is going on in the health service. However, it would be nice to think that we can have slightly more precise answers which are not dependent on long-term research into some of the questions. Regarding breast cancer, would it be more helpful in reducing our alarming mortality rate if, instead of extending the amount of screening, people were trained more precisely in diagnosing early breast cancer? Then when patients come forward, their GPs can recognise it at an early stage?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, late last year we launched a new policy for breast cancer and all cancers. Part of that policy was better training for GPs and reorganising the treatment services so that we can consolidate the expertise in the bigger units. We are very conscious that the first suspicions of breast cancer are often discovered by the GP.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm, as she did partly a moment ago, that mammography tests are available at any time for those women who have a special anxiety or who are alerted by their GPs to have cause for concern? The Question refers only to routine screening. I should declare that I am chairman of the Royal Free Hospital. Is she aware that at that hospital over 50 per cent. of the appointments made by women to attend the Easy Access Clinic for a mammography test are not kept? Does she not believe that that is a waste of valuable NHS resources?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The first part of it is completely correct. I have now found the figure. There are 80 screening centres in England and in addition there are mobile units. We are very concerned about the number of patients who not only do not keep those appointments but other appointments in the National Health Service. In January my right honourable friend the Secretary of

697
State for Health launched a programme called "Help Us to Help You" in order to inform patients how they can help the National Health Service.

Croatia: Expulsion of UNPROFOR
3.12 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of any contacts between Senator Dole of the USA and the Croatian Government concerning the expulsion of UNPROFOR from Croatia.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are aware of such contacts.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord might wish to be a little more forthcoming to the House. There is a war zone in which there is a United Nations force, quite a sizeable part of which is provided by this country. Croatia has declared that if the United Nations does not remove its force within a few weeks it will itself require its removal and will drive the force out. In those circumstances, is it not striking that while the President of the United States appears roughly to be backing the position of the United Nations in defence of which our own soldiers are involved, the Leader of the Senate appears to be backing the opposite position? I ask the noble Lord whether at the minimum this in practice is causing any embarrassment as regards carrying out the duties which this country has undertaken there?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the reply I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was cautious because we do not believe that the gloss which the noble Lord put on the matter is the correct one. We understand that in a television phone-in programme the Foreign Minister of Croatia, in reply to a caller, mentioned that he had been in constant touch with Mr Dole over the issue of the aims embargo.
We understand from inquiries that we have made that Mr. Granic's spokesperson confirmed that there were official contacts between Mr. Granic and Mr. Dole, and that these are in fact part of normal diplomatic activity and relate in particular to the Croatian Government's decision not to renew the UNPROFOR mandate to which the noble Lord has alluded. As far as we know, the contacts cannot be described as constant. To the best of our belief Mr. Dole is at one with the United States Government and with ourselves, the United Nations Security Council and the European Union, in agreeing that this proposal by the Croatian Government is contrary to the interests of everybody concerned. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Croatian Government to think about this. I believe that the noble Lord will agree with me that were UNPROFOR to leave Croatia it would undoubtedly be a step for the worse.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, will the Minister say something about the meeting of the contact group in Paris yesterday? Can he tell the House whether
698
there was progress in getting agreement between the European members and the United States about the policy for promoting peace in the former Yugoslavia?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for his question. My understanding is that agreement was reached between the European Union members and the United States to try to bring forward the proposal to bring the leaders of Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia together.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether our Government have had any direct contact with the Croatian Government on this matter given the fact, as he himself suggests, that the withdrawal of UNPROFOR could lead to a drastic and traumatic widening of the conflict?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. As I have already explained, we are very anxious about this matter and believe that it is very important that UNPROFOR does not leave Croatia. We have taken every step possible to impress on the Croatians the seriousness with which we view the proposal. I am not in a position to spell out in detail the exact nature of the direct contacts which may have been made with the Croatian Government.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the present situation in the former Yugoslavia is a typical example of the dangers that ensue when the United Nations engages in military action in a situation without any apparent clear political or military aim? Will Her Majesty's Government take that into consideration in their future attitude towards events in the former Yugoslavia?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point which the noble Lord makes is obviously relevant. The problem that we all face in the context of what has happened in Yugoslavia is that nobody wanted matters to develop in the way that they have. If we were tackling the matter afresh we would not start from here. Inevitably, because of the very nature of the problem, one has to move one step at a time. Often that means that the progress, or the lack of it, which one appears to make seems frustrating and difficult. With the wisdom of hindsight I fully accept that it is possible to argue that matters should have been processed and brought forward in a different manner. But that does not alter the fact that in the real world one has to deal with the real problems as one finds them. I do not believe that anyone in this House would suggest that the United Nations has not been anything other than a force for good in this conflict and that it has saved a very considerable number of lives in the former Yugoslavia.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, returning to the meeting of the contact group yesterday, can the Minister confirm that it agreed to lift sanctions against Serbia provided that certain conditions were met? Can he also confirm that one of the those conditions was that Serbia should not get involved in any war that might break out within Croatia following the removal of UN troops? If that is the case, can the Minister reassure the House that there will be careful monitoring to ensure that those

699
conditions are met; that sanctions can be reimposed immediately and that the facilities will be there to do so if the conditions are not met by Serbia?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that if events move forward satisfactorily then sanctions may be lifted on Serbia. I am not in a position to confirm or deny the particular details which the noble Baroness gave because I do not know the answer. I would not want to mislead your Lordships' House. I am quite willing to write to the noble Baroness with the details as soon as I can discover them.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for certain mentally disordered patients in England and Wales to receive after-care under supervision after leaving hospital; to provide for the making of community care orders in the case of certain mentally disordered patients in Scotland; to amend the law relating to mentally disordered patients absent without leave or on leave of absence from hospital; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Raoul Wallenberg
3.19 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley Lord Braine of Wheatley rose to call attention to the 50th anniversary of the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the most terrible, heartbreaking story of man's gross inhumanity to man occurred during the lifetime of many of us. It was the murder of the majority of Europe's Jews by the Nazis. These innocent people, young and old, were slaughtered—not because of any crime that they had committed; not even because they posed the remotest threat to the power of the Nazis, but simply because of their religion. It was genocide on a massive scale.
The victims were worked to death, tortured, shot and gassed to death and their bodies burnt in huge incinerators. All of that took place in organised mass killings month after month during the Second World War. If there is a more monstrous story of sustained evil in human history, I have not heard of it.
In that ocean of cruelty and hate in wartime Hungary, one great heroic figure stands out—a brave young Swedish diplomat named Raoul Wallenberg. Indeed, he became one of the greatest heroes of all time. In the closing months of the Second World War, he responded to the appeals of the world Jewish community and left neutral Sweden to do what he could to save what remained of Hungarian Jewry.
So it was that in July 1944, Wallenberg went to what Simon Wiesenthal has referred to as,
700
"the slaughterhouse that was Budapest".
By that time some 5 million European Jews had already been cruelly murdered. The Nazis, aware that they were now losing the war, were obsessed with wiping out those who remained and were within their reach. Four months earlier, they had invaded Hungary with the declared purpose of exterminating the last remaining Jewish community in Europe. Obersturmbannfuhrer Adolf Eichmann was given the task of liquidating the Hungarian Jewish community. It is ironic that the Hungarian Jews, who had survived the longest in Nazi-occupied Europe, were now the quickest to be destroyed. In a two-month period, from 15th May to 8th July 1944, 430,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz in sealed cattle trucks.
Raoul Wallenberg became the head of a special department of the Swedish Legation in Budapest, charged with the task of helping the Jews wherever possible. He began by designing a Swedish protective passport to help them to resist both the Germans and the Hungarians. Wallenberg had previously learned that both the German and Hungarian bureaucracies had a weakness for symbolism. So he had his passports attractively printed in blue and yellow (Sweden's national colours), displaying Sweden's coat of arms and the appropriate authorisations. I have such a passport, although I have not brought it with me today. It is a work of art. Wallenberg's passports had no validity whatsoever under international law, but they served their purpose, commanding the respect of those they were designed to influence. At first, he had permission to issue only 1,500 passports. But he managed to persuade the Hungarian authorities to let him issue 1,000 more and, by one means or another, managed to get the quota raised again.
Altogether Wallenberg was to save the lives of 100,000 Hungarian Jewish men, women and children. At the risk of his own life, he distributed Swedish passports by the thousands, even following the death marches to the Austrian border, physically pulling people off the trains bound for Nazi concentration camps, confronting at every turn the Nazis and the death squads. He also successfully protected refugees in scores of houses that he bought or rented in Budapest, marking them with the neutral flag of Sweden.
As the Soviet armies encircled Budapest in late 1944, Wallenberg fearlessly continued his work. On 13th January 1945, a Russian soldier saw a man standing alone outside a building with a large Swedish flag flying above its main entrance. It was Wallenberg. Speaking in fluent Russian, Wallenberg told an astonished Soviet sergeant that he was the Swedish chargé d' affaires for those parts of Hungary liberated by the Red Army. He was invited to visit the Soviet military headquarters at Debrecen, east of Budapest.
On his way out of the capital on 17th January with a Soviet escort, Wallenberg and his chauffeur, Vilmos Langfelder, stopped at various "Swedish houses", where he bade farewell to his friends. He cheerfully told one colleague, Dr. Erno Peto, that he was not sure whether he would be the guest of the Soviets or their prisoner, but he thought he would be back within a week. Alas! he never returned.
According to reliable witnesses, Wallenberg and his driver were arrested and taken to Moscow, where they were thrown into prison. At first, the Soviet authorities maintained that Wallenberg had been taken into custody by the Red Army and that he was under their protection. However, nothing more was heard of him until 1947, when Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Vyshinsky, in answer to repeated Swedish inquiries, stated that he was not in the Soviet Union and his whereabouts were unknown to them.
That was a blatant lie. Soviet prisoners of war, chiefly German, who were released in the early 1950s confirmed that Wallenberg had indeed been captured and imprisoned in Moscow, first in the dreaded Lubyanka and then in Lefortovskaya prison. The Swedish Government intensified their inquiries, only to be told by the Soviet authorities that they had nothing to add to what they had said on the subject back in 1947.
Again, during a visit to Moscow in 1956, the Swedish Prime Minister raised the matter with the Soviet leadership. He produced irrefutable evidence that Wallenberg had been imprisoned by the Soviets. The Soviet answer to this was not given until the following year—in the form of a note from the Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko to the Swedish Ambassador in Moscow. In that note—to which the Soviet Government have unfailingly referred every time there have been inquiries from the West—it was stated that, as a result of a thorough investigation by the Soviet authorities, it had been discovered that a prisoner named "Walenberg"—with one "1", which is the Lithuanian spelling of the name—ha.d in fact died from a heart attack in 1947 in the Lubyanka. It was also asserted that all the documents pertaining to his case had disappeared and that there was only a handwritten report about his death made by the head of the prison hospital service, one A.L. Smoltsov, who had since died. It seems that Smoltsov had informed the Minister for State Security, Abakumov, who himself was later to be executed in the purges of the Security Police, that Wallenberg was dead. Abakumov, of course, was a convenient person to blame for having misled the Soviet Foreign Ministry in the first place. There was lie after lie, deception after deception.
I must tell noble Lords that the Swedish Government have never accepted—and as far as I am aware, no Western government has accepted—the Soviet line that Wallenberg died in 1947. Why should I say that? The answer is that there is abundant evidence that he was alive after that date.
Further evidence did come to light in later years indicating that Wallenberg was alive but imprisoned in the Soviet Union. Indeed the great Russian historian Solzhenitsyn has testified that he met a Swede fitting Wallenberg's description during his own imprisonment.
Is it possible then that Raoul Wallenberg could still be alive? Well, it is not impossible. If he were alive today, he would be just two years older than myself. Spartan conditions have on occasions—many a doctor can testify to this—proved beneficial to a long life. Incredible though it may sound, during his research for the BBC's brilliant "Man Alive" documentary on
702
Wallenberg, John Bierman met a Russian Jew, Leonid Berger, who was allowed to emigrate in 1978 after spending no fewer than 35 years in Soviet jails.
It is my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to rumours being circulated that the family of Raoul Wallenberg now accepts that he is no longer alive. There is no truth in this. Indeed, contact has been made with United States Congressman Tom Lantos, who was himself rescued from death by Wallenberg and is the only survivor of the Holocaust to be elected to the United States Congress. The Congressman's office contacted Nina Lagergren, Wallenberg's half-sister, and she has categorically denied that any member of the Wallenberg family concedes that he is dead. I am happy to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to Congressman Lantos, who has kept Wallenberg's name alive both inside and outside the United States Congress and was also responsible for him being granted honorary American citizenship.
It is now generally accepted that during his stay in Hungary Wallenberg saved 100,000 lives. We should never, never, never, never forget this. May I humbly suggest that we should honour this brave man by following the example already provided by our American friends and allies by making him an honorary British citizen? In an almost poetic sense, honorary citizenship is uniquely appropriate to Wallenberg quite simply because he used the privilege of Swedish citizenship to save thousands of innocent lives. Indeed, conferring citizenship—the instrument Wallenberg exercised with so much courage, generosity and imagination —accounts not only for the fact that thousands who were granted Swedish citizenship by him are still alive today and have children and grandchildren, but also for the fact that, following his example, other countries which were neutrals in the war—Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the Vatican —granted citizenship as a means of saving Jewish lives.
Why then even after all these years should we in Britain honour Wallenberg's name in this way? The answer is that, with no thought for his own safety, in what has been called "the slaughterhouse that was Budapest", he accomplished the impossible. Sometimes alone, sometimes with others, he thwarted the designs of the most murderous regime the civilised world has ever seen. He bribed the unspeakable Nazis; he charmed them on occasions; he lied to them; he certainly threatened and bullied them; and used every other means he could devise to save the lives of the Budapest Jews. He was a Swedish diplomat. He had some authority. He even entered the deportation trains himself to pull off innocent human beings who would otherwise have gone to a cruel death. He worked incessantly, at great personal risk with utter disregard for his own safety, and through the sheer force of his example inspired hundreds of others to assist him.
At the end, when the Red Army entered Budapest, and what little remained of Nazi rule collapsed into anarchy, Wallenberg worked on tirelessly. He told a Swedish diplomat who urged him to seek cover in the Swedish Legation:
"For me there is no choice … I'd never be able to go back to Stockholm without knowing inside myself that I'd done all a man could do to save as many Jews as possible".
So it is that we remember Wallenberg because he has become more than a hero of our times. He symbolises the central conflict of our age, the determination to remain human, caring and free in the face of unspeakable tyranny. What Wallenberg represented in Budapest was nothing less than the conscience of the civilised world. By abducting and imprisoning him, the Soviet authorities did more than violate the long-standing rules of diplomacy accepted by civilised nations and their governments, they demonstrated contempt for everything his dedication and bravery in Budapest had achieved.
Yet even the Soviet Union of those days did not succeed in suppressing his achievements. Just as the Nazis could not keep him from his mission, so the Soviets failed to obliterate his legacy.
All mankind owes a great debt to this man, not only for the 100,000 lives he saved, but also for the example he gave us as to how one man with the courage to care, even in history's darkest hour, can become a beacon of light and can make a difference.
There are two very good reasons for remembering this courageous man. First, because as the author Milan Kundera observes,
"the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."
Secondly, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the world may little note nor long remember what we say here, but surely it will always remember what Raoul Wallenberg did to salvage the dignity of the human spirit from what was a hell on earth. It is a great honour to pay tribute to him this afternoon. I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Braine, for ensuring that we have this opportunity, shortly after the 50th anniversary of his disappearance, to remember Raoul Wallenberg, and for the very moving way in which he introduced our debate. The noble Lord and I had many occasions in another place to participate together in debates relating to human rights. I welcome this earnest that we may continue to do so.
We welcome the debate for three reasons: first, because it is right that we should remember a man who was directly instrumental in saving more lives probably than can be credited to any other individual of his generation. Not only did he respond to a call for help. He was constantly thinking of new ways to accomplish his mission, seeking out new opportunities for rescuing those who were otherwise condemned to perish; and, as the noble Lord said, he exposed himself constantly to the risk that he would himself fall victim to the regime.
704
So far as I am aware, Raoul Wallenberg was the only person in the Second World War who confronted Nazi officials in their own headquarters and told them that, if they proceeded with what they were then proposing, he would personally see to it that they were hanged as war criminals and compelled them to back down by sheer audacity and will-power.
It is ironic for a man who faced so many risks that he fell victim to a risk which he almost certainly could not have envisaged: that he would be arrested, not by the Nazis, but by one of the Allied powers to whom he was turning for help in what he was seeking to do.
At a time when so much media attention is devoted to those who bring shame on the human race, it is good to see more attention being paid to someone who enhanced our humanity. I hope that in reply the Minister will respond to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Braine, and set out the Government's intentions as regards conferring honorary citizenship on Raoul Wallenberg.
The second reason why the debate is welcome is that it is possible, even now, that someone somewhere may learn of our anxiety and will shed further light on what became of him. After repeated assurances from the Soviet regime that nothing was known of Raoul Wallenberg, in 1957 an official note was sent to the Swedish Government stating that on 17th June 1947 the superintendent of the infirmary at Lubyanka prison had sent a note to the Minister of State Security—which is not entirely without significance—to the effect that Wallenberg had died in the prison of a heart attack. That note added that nothing else was known of the matter.
That was a startling development for two reasons. First, until then the Soviet Government had responded to every inquiry by insisting that there was nothing to indicate that Wallenberg had ever been in the Soviet Union. Either that was a deliberate lie or no one had even troubled to make the inquiry. Secondly, it did not accord with what was known of the practices of the Soviet bureaucracy, which insisted on full documentation for everything that it did, and it was most careful to retain the documents. Perhaps more importantly, it is inconsistent with a great body of other evidence that he was alive and imprisoned at least until 1955, and there is strong reason to believe that he was alive substantially longer than that. It is not impossible that further information may emerge, although one hesitates to raise false hopes. Debate such as this may serve to remind the world that the files are still not closed.
The final reason for welcoming the debate is that, unhappily, Raoul Wallenberg was not the last victim to be numbered among those who disappeared and whose disappearance must be laid at the door of the regime under which they lived. It has happened many times since the Second World War. There are some whose fate was discussed in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Braine, and me. There are still hundreds of people whose families are left wondering what has become of them, hoping against hope that one day something will happen which will enable them to return to their homes.

705
This is not the occasion to mention any of them specifically because we are remembering one heroic individual. However, there may be those who were instrumental in the disappearance of others and!who hope that, after exhaustive inquiries, questions asked and repeated and the blanket of silence remaining, one day those who ask the questions will grow weary, the curtain will be drawn on the matter and the world will forget. This debate may serve as an opportunity to your Lordships to send a message to tyrants the world over: "You may cause your victims to disappear; you may protest that you have no answers as to what became of them; but do not delude yourselves that the inquiring voices will sink into silence. Not only will we not forget such victims, but there are those who will not cease to remind the world about the unanswered questions, and those questions will continue to ring in your ears". I hope that, together with our tribute to Raoul Wallenberg, that message will go out from your Lordships' House.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that in recent years the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe considered whether Raoul Wallenberg was alive and, if not, what had happened to him. I refer to the manner, occasion and place of his death. Early in 1991, the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe referred the issue to the committee on legal affairs and human rights. I was chairman of that committee, which appointed a rapporteur, M. Pontillon, to examine the facts in so far as they could be established. Perhaps I may summarise those facts in so far as they were capable of being established. The committee was fortunate to hear in person Mrs. Simone Lucki, the Secretary General of the International Committee of Inquiry. She was able to bring before the committee a number of relevant details.
Raoul Wallenberg was born in 1912 and belonged to one of the wealthiest and best-known families in Sweden. In 1939 he became the European representative of a major trading house whose chairman was a Hungarian Jew. This association and numerous journeys through Europe made him fully aware of the fate that the Nazis had reserved for the Jews and he decided to defend their cause.
At the request of the Jewish organisations and of President Roosevelt, the founder of the War Refugee Board, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent the young Wallenberg, who was appointed attaché to the Swedish delegation in Budapest, on a rescue mission.
His first operation involved the granting of protection certificates, known as Wallenberg passports, to Hungarian Jews who had family links—sometimes real but more often imaginary—with Sweden. He also placed 32 buildings under the protection of the Swedish Crown. As far as can be established, some 30,000 Jews sheltered in those buildings. In November 1944, as the first death marches got under way, he succeeded at the last moment in preventing the implementation of the Eichmann plan, which would have led to the extermination of the approximately 70,000 Jews in the Budapest ghetto.
706
On 17th January 1945, following the entry of the Soviet troops into Budapest, Raoul Wallenberg went to the Soviet army headquarters in Debrecen with his driver, Langfelder. They never returned. Those facts are reasonably well established.
There is some evidence, although not a great deal, to support the proposition that Wallenberg survived. Were he alive today he would be about 83 years of age. There is some evidence to suggest that the Soviet authorities suspected Wallenberg of spying because of the support that he was receiving from the United States. Since his disappearance, Sweden has made numerous requests for information about him.
The Soviet Government initially stated that they had placed Mr. Wallenberg under their protection. Then they claimed to have no knowledge of the case until in 1957 Mr. Gromyko stated that Mr. Wallenberg had died of a heart attack in the Lubyanka prison in 1947 but that his body had been cremated, the death certificate had been destroyed and all the medical personnel then in service were now dead. That was Mr. Gromyko's assertion. The Kremlin maintained that position until August 1989, when the Soviet Ambassador to Sweden, Mr. Boris Pankin, announced that Mr. Wallenberg had been assassinated by Soviet agents and that Moscow would do everything possible to recover his body. Therefore, there was a measure of ambivalence there.
Indeed, there are numerous testimonies, going back to the death of Stalin, during the 1970s and then January 1981, when a Wallenberg tribunal was set up. Several individuals have stated that they met him or heard reports of him on various occasions and in different locations within the Soviet Union. Among the recent accounts are those of Josip Terelja, who, in 1987, stated that he had met a Ukrainian who had known Wallenberg in 1953; and Elena Butova, a doctor at Vladimir prison, who examined him, or so she says, in 1980. According to the Swedish writer, K. Fant, Mr. Wallenberg was alleged to have been treated at the Blagovechtchensk Clinic in Siberia on 22nd December 1986, and she is specific about the date. Andrei Sakharov was also convinced that Wallenberg had survived and said that he had met people who had met him.
In October 1989, Mr. Wallenberg's family was invited to Moscow, where the KGB passed members of that family a series of objects belonging to Wallenberg—a prison record drawn up when he was in the Lubyanka, a diplomatic passport and foreign currency. The Soviet weekly, New Times, has devoted several articles to Mr. Wallenberg and in October 1989 it launched an appeal for information about him.
Other than the proposition, which has not been sustained, that the KGB was to open up its files, those are all the known facts which the rapporteur to the legal committee, M. Pontillon could establish.
There is one other matter to which I should refer. In November 1990 the committee found listed in the archives of the Soviet Council of Ministers a letter dated February 1947 which referred to Wallenberg's presence in the Lefortov prison. That was discovered by chance, which, of course, is in contradistinction to the earlier KGB position.

707
Those are the facts which M. Pontillon established in so far as he had access to information and records. The Legal Committee of the Council of Europe decided that such evidence as was before it could not lead it to a firm conclusion as to whether he was still alive or had been killed or died earlier.
The matter still stands before the Legal Committee of the Council of Europe. It has not closed its files on the matter. Mr. Esperson, who was that committee's rapporteur to Russia on the question of Russian accession to the Council of Europe, a matter currently before the council, was asked on a recent visit whether he would make further inquiries. That he did, but they were of an inconclusive character. In 1991 the committee asked the then USSR visiting delegation if it would care to comment and explain further but it achieved nothing of a positive nature. Currently it is asking, and has asked, the visiting delegation from the Soviet Federation for its observations, and the matter stands before the committee in that regard.
I thought that those factual matters might be of some interest to your Lordships' House.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as a former compatriot of Raoul Wallenberg, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Braine of Wheatley, for raising yet again in this House the question of what happened to Raoul Wallenberg.
The noble Lord's speech gave us the background and the details of what we know, which is very little, about what happened to Raoul once he disappeared behind the Iron Curtain on 17th January 1945. He was the most courageous man of whom I can ever remember hearing because when he was working in Budapest, he was working in the district where Eichmann was in charge of the extermination of the Jews. He had to meet Eichmann and had to go over his head in order to save the people whom he managed to save. As a born Swede, I am tremendously proud of the man who saved 100,000 lives in Hungary.
Considerable efforts have been made by the Swedish Government and by this Government too. On 19th March 1987 in this House I tabled a Question which asked the Prime Minister, who was then visiting the USSR, whether she would consider raising the question of Raoul Wallenberg during her visit to that country. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, replied that she would draw the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. I thought that that was a good opportunity to raise the matter again because Gorbachev was then in power in the Soviet Union and he had made many pronouncements on the importance of human rights. I am not aware of what the Prime Minister achieved in that regard because I never received any information.
Andrei Gromyko finally wrote and claimed that Raoul Wallenberg had died suddenly in his cell and that his body had been cremated. Later he implied that perhaps he had been killed. Moreover, the Minister for Security Services —Abakumov—was sentenced to death and shot. But that is no answer to our questions, because
708
since that reply was given by Gromyko, to the knowledge of the Wallenberg Society in this country, there have been at least 24 sightings in various prisons in the Soviet Union, the last of which was as late as 1980.
I spoke to Mrs. Nina Lagergren, Raoul Wallenberg's sister, after her visit to the Soviet Union during which she was given his diplomatic passport and various other possessions. I asked her whether she believed that he was still alive. She said, "I can never, never put it out of my mind that he might still be alive". When there is a man about whom there is so much doubt, one must always hope that something will come out of the Soviet Union to answer all the family's questions.
All over the world, not only in Sweden but in many other countries also, Wallenberg Societies have grown up to try to put pressure on the Soviet Government. For example, the British society held a vigil outside the Soviet Embassy each year on 4th August on his birthday. The last one was held as late as 1985. In October 1982, the Wallenberg Society in this country mounted an exhibition in the House of Commons which the Prime Minister attended to commemorate Wallenberg's 70th birthday. The exhibition then travelled to various parts of the country.
It was with tremendous pleasure that we received the information that Ronald Reagan had signed legislation to confer an honorary citizenship on Raoul Wallenberg. He is the only man this century, apart from Winston Churchill, on whom that honour has been conferred. I believe that we should do the same.
The Private Members' Bill which was introduced in another place under the ten-minute rule on 22nd March 1989 by Mr. David Amess received its First Reading, but it was turned down by the Government because they claimed that it would set a dangerous precedent to confer an honorary citizenship on a man like Raoul Wallenberg.
This year we are commemorating the end of the Holocaust and the horrors of the Nazi extermination of Jews, Catholics, gypsies and all kinds of people in Europe. I believe that we should commemorate at the same time the memory—if it is a memory—of the man who was responsible for saving the lives of 100,000 Jews. We should commemorate his outstanding courage and humanity by conferring an honorary citizenship on him in this country.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the whole House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Braine, for having used the opportunity this afternoon to raise such an important matter which involves the honour of the entire United Kingdom. Speaking personally, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend who expressed on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition sentiments which I feel quite sure will be endorsed throughout the House. Again, from my own point of view, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, makes, I am happy to say, much of my speech completely unnecessary. I say that because he gave us a complete and factual account which not only reflects on

709
the noble Lord's power of marshalling and presenting the facts but also on the pertinacity of the Council of Europe in thoroughly investigating the whole matter and bringing it to our attention.
The events that we are discussing this afternoon occupied but six short months of one person's life. He was a young Swede, aged 32, who had studied architecture and who came from a well-known family in Sweden. He decided on the basis of what he saw in Budapest, and on the basis of reports that had been given to him, to devote his life at that point to a series of actions which were extremely brave. He displayed a bravery which was, for one man, almost incredible to relate and which carried with it every day, every second arid every minute the risk of his being killed along with those whom he sought to save. Therefore, we ought to consider Raoul Wallenberg as someone who is a little special.
The fact that our then wartime allies, the Russians, took him in on 17th January 1945 did not make much impact at the time. Both the noble Lord, Lord Braine, and myself were in the forces overseas. We and the whole country were concerned and preoccupied with winning the war against the Nazis. At that time the courage of Mr. Wallenberg could hardly have attracted the publicity that it would undoubtedly attract today or possibly during the period immediately after the war ended. Those were the six crucial months.
It is perhaps not realised that the Russian act of perfidy in confining Mr. Wallenberg in the Lubyanka from 17th January onwards was surpassed only by their cynicism some four years later when the people of Budapest wanted to erect a monument to him in that city. It was done. But before it could be dedicated, the Russians ordered its destruction, thereby confirming in the perceptions of most ordinary people their complete wickedness and perfidy in the matter.
I regret to say that some of us over here, including myself, who were possibly under the illusion that the great alliance of the Soviet Union and the West was still in some kind of teetering existence, probably did not do what we ought to have done in investigating further matters that had been brought to our attention. To that extent, we are all a little culpable, though of course not those who were not alive at the time. However, I—and I am approximately the same age as Mr. Wallenberg would be were he alive today—had some inkling of it; but we all failed him.
It is true that many years later in, I believe, 1987, a memorial was finally erected in Budapest to the memory of Mr. Wallenberg. A report in the Independent on Thursday 12th October 1989 carried a feature which said:
"On a grass verge along Szilagyi Erzsebet avenue in Budapest stands a bronze figure flanked by blocks of granite, bearing the inscription: 'While good fortune stands by your side, friends are plentiful. But should grey clouds gather, you are alone to withstand the storm'".
That is a poignancy which Mr. Wallenberg has left all Western society and, for that matter, the world. Therefore, I believe that we should honour him in some expiation perhaps for the many omissions which we or our predecessors may have made in the past.
710
I am bound to say that it would have done no harm at the meeting of the CSCE which took place on 5th and 6th December in Budapest (the first time that that organisation, or for that matter any other European organisation, had met there) when the cavalcades passed for someone to have left an official wreath and made some gesture on behalf of the memory—and I fear that it must now be considered a memory —of that very gallant gentleman.
There was a time in 1985 when the matter was raised in another place. I am not at all sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Braine, who at one time was Father of the other place, was present at the time. However, according to The Times on 21st March 1985:
"Mr. Sumberg asked Sir Geoffrey Howe to make any invitation to the Soviet Union to attend ceremonies in Britain to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of VE day conditional on the revelation of details of",
Mr. Wallenberg's death. Sir Geoffrey Howe replied that he did not think it would be,
"appropriate or effective to set preconditions to foreign representation at our national commemoration".
He did, however, say a little later in another place,
"The Soviet Government claimed he died in 1947. But I can assure Mr. Sumberg we will continue to make inquiries about this matter until we receive a satisfactory answer".
The question I have to ask Her Majesty's Government is whether since that time they have received a satisfactory answer, and, if they have not, what after 1985 did they do about it? In the meantime I should like to associate myself with the sentiments which have been so movingly put in this House that we should follow the example of the United States in conferring honorary citizenship upon this gallant gentleman.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Braine of Wheatley for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I was enormously impressed by his speech and indeed by those of all the noble Lords who have spoken today. The story of Raoul Wallenberg is indeed an almost unbelievably extraordinary and wonderful one, and there is very little that I can add to the information which has been given today, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and I certainly cannot match the oratory.
As is well known, in January 1945 Raoul Wallenberg was taken into custody by the Red Army. Exactly what happened to him remains a mystery. Persistent attempts to unearth proof of Raoul Wallenberg's fate have been unsuccessful, as we have heard from many noble Lords today. New hope came in the dying days of the Soviet era. A new working group replaced the Wallenberg International Commission amid signs that the Soviet authorities were prepared to display greater commitment and openness. This is now the official body engaged in the ongoing investigation. On the Swedish side, the group includes Wallenberg's half-brother as well as police and Foreign Ministry officials. The Russian team is drawn from the staffs of the foreign, justice and interior ministries. We continue to give that group our support and urge the Russians to do likewise. The group has met 11 times since it was established. Its meetings

711
have been both in Stockholm and in Moscow. The last was in November 1994: the next is scheduled for next month in Moscow.
The group has two major tasks. First, it is trying to identify and collect all the relevant documentary evidence which is available. Secondly, it is responsible for interviewing anyone who may have knowledge about the disappearance of Wallenberg, or his subsequent fate. Interviews are not restricted to Russians. There may well be others, for example those who were held in prison at the same time as Wallenberg, or who heard reports of his whereabouts from other prisoners. We understand that the group will publish a first report later this year, but progress has unfortunately been slow. We understand that there has been no major breakthrough. Every rumour and every scrap of information has to be checked out, but there is no doubt about the group's commitment. Despite the frustrations there are certainly no plans to wind up its work.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, it is enormously important that we do not give up the search. Those who cause people to disappear should know that we will never cease to ask after them. My noble friend Lord Braine and others have raised the question of whether Raoul Wallenberg might be granted British citizenship. Of course I am not in a position today to give an answer to that, but I guarantee that I will draw this debate, and all that has been so movingly said, to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, many people in this country and elsewhere have been active in keeping Raoul Wallenberg's name alive. I am delighted to learn that my honourable friend David Amess has been successful at least in securing that a memorial will be placed in Cumberland Place this year. Raoul Wallenberg was a most extraordinary man. We have heard today testimony to his bravery, to his extraordinary principle, to his disregard for himself and to his audacity. Even listening to today's descriptions of what he did I find it impossible to understand how he did it. It is unimaginable to me that anyone could actually achieve what he achieved in the circumstances that existed at that time. He saved 100,000 people. My knowledge of history—and I admit it is not that extensive—includes many people who have killed 100,000 people. My history books refer to plenty of people who have killed only a few. But I can think of no other example in human history of someone who has saved 100,000 people.
We must remember Raoul Wallenberg. It is not healthy just to remember the villains, however salutary that is. We need the heroes as well. The evils that Raoul Wallenberg fought are with us today. We need to remember what one person can do against even the most terrible regime that we have known. I hope that this debate will play a small part in that remembrance.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the support that noble Lords have given to my Motion and for the way in which all of them have
712
spoken, and to the Minister for his closing remarks. All have spoken from the heart about the terrible story I unfolded earlier concerning the fate of the Hungarian Jews during the most terrible of all wars.
The cruelty to which hundreds of thousands of Jewish men, women and children were subjected in Hungary and indeed elsewhere in Europe knew no bounds—no bounds at all. It horrifies us still today. I recall saying in another place some 13 years ago that we in the West should never ever allow the Soviet Union to think that we will forget Raoul Wallenberg who saved the lives of 100,000 Hungarian Jews from the Nazi holocaust. At that time the Soviet Embassy in London was refusing to see British Members of Parliament of all parties just to discuss the matter quietly and in a civilized fashion.
I hope the House will permit me to say that it seems incredible that one man, a diplomat representing a neutral country—not a country at war—who was posted to Budapest, managed with the utmost bravery and skill to save at least 100,000 lives. As the Soviet armies closed in on Budapest, with the hope of bringing to an end the agony that everyone in that part of the world had suffered, he was seized, imprisoned and held in defiance of all civilized behaviour by a regime whose own brand of threats, cruelty and persecution were to menace the world at large long after the Second World War had come to an end. Even now I find it shaming that during the earlier periods when Wallenberg was undoubtedly alive in Russian hands there appears to have been no effective action taken by the wartime allies to secure the release of one of the greatest heroes of our troubled century.
However, it is not too late—and the debate has illustrated that your Lordships do not think that it is too late—for today's Soviet Union under its new leadership to set in motion the kind of inquiry that should have been made long ago. It should be a matter of honour for its leaders to come clean on what their predecessors did. If any man could have defied his oppressors with spirit and determination it was Wallenberg. This remains a matter I find very difficult to understand. Until firm evidence of Wallenberg's death is produced we should not assume that he is dead. As I said in the course of my earlier speech, if he were alive today he would be only two years older than I am.
In his moving book Righteous Gentile—the missing hero of the holocaust, John Bierman concludes:
"So we confront the ultimate question about Wallenberg. Is he still alive, somewhere out there in the Gulag Archipelago? On the evidence, maddeningly incomplete though it is, the answer has to be: Quite possibly, he is.
As long as that possibility exists, it seems unthinkable"—
and I gather from what other noble Lords have said that it is unthinkable to us all—
"that free men should abandon him to his fate".
I hope that this short debate will enable a wider audience to understand what this great man achieved at the peril and the cost of his life, coming as he did from a neutral country but concerned as he was with the appalling cruelties to a vast number of human beings.

713
What he did on behalf of those persecuted, tortured and slaughtered souls should live on in the memories of civilised men and women for decades to come.
A Noble Lord: My Lords, withdraw the Motion.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, what I should like to do is to move for Papers. Emotion overcame me and I forgot the proper procedure, which was to withdraw my Motion, but on the understanding that I can call for Papers.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Taylor of Blackburn): My Lords, the Question is that the Motion is, by leave, withdrawn. Is it your pleasure that the Motion is, by leave, withdrawn?
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

South Africa
4.22 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to call attention to the case for Government action to promote economic, cultural, sporting and tourist links with South Africa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this short debate today. I am pleased that so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak in support of this Motion.
This is the first debate on South Africa in your Lordships' House since last year's general election, aside from the recent Second Reading of the South Africa Bill. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Poole, will be making his maiden speech today. His recent experience as a special adviser to the policy unit of the Prime Minister's office will, I am sure, have provided him with a valuable insight into South African affairs. While I am sorry that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, cannot reply personally to the debate, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will respond ably for the Government.
Last year the world watched in wonder as South Africa completed an almost miraculous political transformation. From the darkness of apartheid emerged a brand new democracy. Where so many had predicted civil war, peace broke out and the people united in a national surge for reconciliation. I returned from South Africa only two weeks ago and the change from a year ago is remarkable.
That political transition can be said to have represented Phase I of the rebuilding process. When the international media left after last year's general election, the businessmen arrived. It is on that issue that I should like to address today's debate. Phases II and III are just beginning; namely, the massive task of satisfying the raised expectations of the underprivileged majority. To that end the new government have launched their cornerstone policy document, the reconstruction and development programme, which I shall refer to as the RDP.
This short debate seeks to move beyond that political question to address the economic and social challenges facing South Africa. It focuses on how Her Majesty's Government can most effectively help to secure South Africa's future as a beacon of stability and success.
I am pleased that many of your noble Lords who are speaking today will be addressing specific: issues within the broad remit of the debate. The All-Party Parliamentary South Africa Group, of which I am one of the vice-chairmen, was established last year on the initiative of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, with the clear objective of forging ever closer working relationships between Her Majesty's Government and South Africa. The group has already co-ordinated a number of projects and will be playing an active role in assisting with the staging of local elections in South Africa later this year. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who is treasurer of the group and who returned from a visit to South Africa only today, will participate in today's debate.
It is essential that South Africa remains at the forefront of international affairs, constantly assisted and nurtured from abroad. It remains a country of crucial significance: first, because its success is pivotal to the stability and recovery of many countries in sub-Saharan Africa; and, secondly, because it is a substantial economic force and has a well-established and fast-growing infrastructure. Looking at the devastation in countries like Angola and Mozambique, it is to be hoped that that transition will grow from strength to strength.
Her Majesty's Government have hitherto made a significant contribution to South Africa. I warmly welcome the various aid packages and initiatives recently announced by the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. While there will always be calls for more aid, it must be accepted that Her Majesty's Government have played and are continuing to play a leading role in the international effort to assist the new government.
The quality of aid is as important as the quantity of aid. In my view, financial aid should be targeted as much as possible at specific issues. I shall not raise the recent scandal involving the Reverend Alan Boesak and the allegations concerning Winnie Mandela. All aid has to go through the normal budgetary processes and must be targeted at specific projects, which are fully accounted for.
This short debate specifically calls attention to the promotion of economic, cultural, sporting and tourist links with South Africa. The process of renewing international contact in these areas after the long years of international sanctions has already contributed significantly to the raising of national morale. But more can be and must be achieved. I should like briefly to discuss each of those topics. I shall focus on those needs which the South African Government themselves have indicated are of paramount importance by incorporating them in their White Paper on the reconstruction and development programme.
The central economic reality facing South Africa today is that the economy must grow at an annual rate in excess of 3 per cent. if the RDP is to be adequately financed. Without consistent economic growth, the house of cards could come tumbling down. The latest figure on GDP growth is 2.7 per cent., a statistic which reaffirms the need for the Reserve Bank under the disciplined governorship of Chris Stals to maintain tight fiscal control. Inflation, which has become rampant in many of the emerging markets, remains relatively under control in South Africa at below 10 per cent.
International trade has been rising strongly since last year's general election with British trade to South Africa up by 27 per cent. in the first nine months of 1994, confirming Britain's position as South Africa's largest trading partner. There have been many high profile trade visits to South Africa, including the trade delegation of the President of the Board of Trade last year, as well as the British Invisibles Delegation which will visit South Africa in March, coinciding with the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. The Department of Trade and Industry plans a further 13 trade missions to South Africa as part of its Opportunity South Africa campaign this year.
Several commentators in South Africa have remarked in the past that international trade delegations tend to bring their notepads rather than their cheque books. But I am pleased to note that that trend appears to be gradually reversing. Since the election, many investors have adopted a wait-and-see approach to South Africa, expressing concern about the long term stability as well as on law and order. However, day by day those fears are being eased and an even clearer picture may emerge this Friday when President Mandela will speak at the State Opening of Parliament in Cape Town, outlining his Government's plans for the forthcoming Session. Fiscal policy will also be addressed in next month's budget. Many international investors into South Africa have recognised the need to pursue joint ventures with companies operating in South Africa which are fully conversant with local conditions.
Regarding the promotion of cultural affairs, such notable British exports as "Mr. Bean" and "The Two Ronnies" have been enjoyed by large television audiences in South Africa. A broad range of theatre and dance companies have entertained the market opened up by the lifting of the Equity ban. In fact, in two weeks' time the Rolling Stones will be performing at the Wanderers Stadium in Johannesburg. There has also been extensive contact between the Department of National Heritage and their counterparts in South Africa. As a result, I am confident that South Africa will continue to find Britain a regular source of top class entertainment. Such developments may not show up on the balance sheet, but they certainly contribute crucially to national morale; and they significantly enhance the ubiquitous feel-good factor during these times of change.
The same is true for sport. South Africans have always invested vast quantities of emotion, resources and effort into their sport, and the act of supporting the national rugby, cricket and football teams through their
716
readmission to international competition has been among the most effective means of uniting a once divided people. Recently Steve Tshwete, the Minister of Sport, spoke of sport providing the cement which holds together the bricks that are building the new nation.
In 99 days' time, South Africa will host the Rugby World Cup —the third largest sporting event in the world, and the largest sporting event ever staged on the African continent. I believe that many of the international spectators visiting South Africa for the first time will be overwhelmed by the quality of its stadiums and facilities. The tournament will offer an unprecedented opportunity for the country to demonstrate its best qualities to global television audiences.
I am pleased to note that the Sports Council has launched an initiative to help South African sport in three main areas: to train more than 1,000 South African athletics coaches; to educate 350 South African soccer coaches; and to train South African administrators.
The fourth area of promotion is tourism. With its fine weather, outstanding scenery and game parks, the country has the potential to become one of the most sought after holiday destinations in the world, thereby deriving much needed international revenue and creating many jobs. Numbers of international visitors have risen dramatically since the election. However, the figure of 850,000 foreign tourists last year still compares unfavourably with the 4 million foreign tourists who visited Kenya last year. Tourism currently represents about 3 per cent. of South Africa's GNP compared with a global average of 10 per cent. More than 70 per cent. of tourists in South Africa originate from within the country. To realise its tourism potential, South Africa must and will have to improve its internal transport structure and raise the standards of accommodation and service in major hotels. There will also need to be more assurances that South Africa is a safe and politically stable destination for international tourists. I believe that Her Majesty's Government can help in that area by providing more tertiary education and training in tourist and leisure activities to South African operators.
With recent figures suggesting that nine incoming tourists to South Africa correspond to the creation of one job, a boom in the tourist industry could produce a highly positive impact on the economy. Although luring the world's holidaymakers may seem far removed from the task of rebuilding poverty-stricken townships, it can prove a valuable source of income for the RDP. The RDP lies at the heart of the new Government's strategy and has assumed the dimensions of a national mission. International donors have focused their attention on promoting the RDP. The corporate sector within South African has orientated its strategy to complement the RDP's goals, and educational institutions have framed their plans to support and promote the RDP.
In simple terms that programme may seem nothing more than a state sponsored plan to provide jobs and houses for the very poor. But in fact the programme incorporates an extensive range of initiatives. The Government have budgeted 37.5 billion rand—that equates to about £6.8 billion—over the next five years, and have identified five prime aims: to meet basic needs,

717
such as jobs, land and housing; to develop human resources through education and training; to promote economic growth; to complete the democratisation process; and, finally, to establish a sound structure of government. As President Mandela stated in the White Paper,
"The RDP should not be seen as a new set of projects, but rather as a comprehensive reconstruction of existing activities. Growth and development are more than inter dependent. They are mutually enforcing".
The RDP is, in short, the way ahead. I believe it is essential that any British initiative to South Africa be framed as closely as possible to the needs set out in that programme.
These are exciting times for South Africa. The new country enjoys almost boundless potential. Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that there remains much to be done, and that there could be many hiccups. The jarring contrast between the opulence, say, of gracious homes in Cape Town suburbs of Constantia and Bishopscourt, and the squalor of Khayelitsha, a township just a few kilometres away, are repeated up and down the country. It may be the case that South Africa will only truly settle down when that almighty chasm between the rich and the poor is satisfactorily bridged. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Poole: My Lords, 33 years ago I sat on the steps of the Throne to listen to my father's maiden speech. I must have been about 17 at the time. I do not think children are ever very kind where their parents are concerned, and I fear that. I certainly was not, because over lunch my acerbic eye was surprised that someone who seemed to me so enormously experienced in speaking could be quite so nervous. I think I understand that better today.
I venture to speak about South Africa because my grandmother, who died in the 1960s, was brought up in the Orange Free State before the Boer War. These had clearly been enchanted years to her; so my childhood was filled with her memories. Spion Kop and Ladysmith, for example, were as real to me as Romney Marsh, which lay before her house. Her old age, however, was saddened by apartheid and what it was doing to her country. She held it in horror. She made me promise not to visit her country until apartheid had come to an end.
When Nelson Mandela left prison, I can assure noble Lords that I quickly booked my ticket. It was not just to visit the area of my grandmother's childhood or the battlefields, which I certainly did—and staggeringly beautiful I found the country to be. My real purpose was to see what could be done to help to rebuild business relationships that had been attenuated or broken by apartheid. At the time I was running corporate finance for a major investment house in the City. We had many connections that I could look up. Visiting those was a profoundly depressing experience. It was absolutely apparent that the impact of years of sanctions had gravely damaged the economy.
718
But much worse, visiting the African townships hugely depressed me. The magnitude of the task of bringing any economic development to the Africans who had been deprived for so long of any of the building blocks that were required had to be seen to be imagined. As I toured around, it became clear to me that virtually none of the educational skills or the infrastructure that would be required was in place—none of the components that were needed to build an economy was really present so far as the Africans were concerned. Whatever was to be done was clearly a task beyond private enterprise alone. Our Government must be congratulated not just on recognising that, but on moving so very quickly to put such a range of imaginative initiatives in place to assist the development of South Africa's economy, as well as assisting on the cultural and sporting side.
There can be no secure future for South Africa without a strong economy which can deliver to the Africans the housing, education, health care and job opportunities that are their right. My main concern here is the role that the private sector can play and how it can be fostered by the British Government. South Africa's economic development will best be driven by the building of a vibrant, broader-based private sector—partly by privatisation, partly by new investment coming into the country. When I talk about investment I do not mean the sort of investment funds that are flowing into the Stock Market and so rapidly and unhelpfully increasing the price of a limited number of listed companies. What is needed is the creation of wealth generating businesses from which the black community will profit as owners, employees and customers.
Since last year's visit by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, much has been put in place to assist British companies and businesses which might participate in that process. We should pay tribute to the Prime Minister's strong personal commitment to assisting South Africa.
I think particularly of the Opportunity South Africa campaign, of the £100 million of development finance to be delivered over three years; and, indeed, for example, of the biggest ever UK trade drive that will follow Her Majesty's visit later this year; as well as all the training and educational initiatives, to mention but a few.
The key to fostering investment is to require our Government to take steps to assist in modifying the political risk that investors will face. I am glad to say that the Government have moved effectively here as well. For example, special ECGD arrangements for up to £1 billion of cover have been specially provided in what I believe is a unique initiative against political risk.
But not quite everything is being done in that respect as might be the case. First, it has to be .said that to potential investors the 1999 elections represent a very serious hurdle. When talking to the investment banks in the City which act for British companies, it is plain that that is the case. As a result, although much know-how is moving to South Africa—a good example would be Eastern Midlands Electric's excellent joint project to wire up Khay-elitsa—the amount of capital for direct investment from the UK is rather disappointing. It is a

719
sad commentary, but I have been told by many of our merchant banks that they are acting for more United States investors in South Africa than for British ones. I believe that that is partly due to that country's excellent political risk coverage. As it happens, there are special ECGD arrangements to provide medium-term political risk coverage to direct investors in South Africa. But for some reason the existence of these arrangements is largely unknown.
Secondly, whatever arrangements there are for protection against political risk must necessarily come with operating rules and guidelines for the officials who will administer them. From my brief time in government, I know how very easily guidelines can atrophy into insurmountable barriers. Perhaps I may be permitted to put in a plea to Ministers to ensure both that the arrangements become better broadcast and that whatever rules are in place shall be interpreted as flexibly as possible—not just in the present climate but to meet whatever future requirements there may be as the economy in South Africa evolves.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the House has been privileged to hear two outstanding speeches. Although I am not required to congratulate the opening speaker, I am required—and it is a pleasure—to congratulate the maiden speaker. His father was a very popular Member of this House, and a very powerful man—and his grandmother was obviously extremely wise, because she was one of my supporters, but I do not mean in a party political sense.
My first involvement with South Africa was in the formation of the boycott movement in 1958. We met then, in the basement of dear David Pitt's surgery, with Oliver Tambo and many others. We took the same view as the noble Lord's grandmother; namely, that we ought not to visit, trade, engage in tourism or sell arms, but should wait until the time for which we were campaigning when South Africa would be free.
It was therefore for me a most wonderful experience to be chosen as one of the Commonwealth and UN representatives, as an official observer, and to be in South Africa for five weeks to see happening what we had campaigned for nearly 35 years earlier. The British Government's record at that time was not very good. That emphasises, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, our special responsibility at this time in every way—governmental, private, or whatever. We have to mobilise our support for South Africa.
South Africa is basically enormously rich. It has so much to offer to those who go there. Eventually it will have so much to offer for those who invest there. South Africa's role is not just qua South Africa, qua southern Africa. I believe that it has a very important stabilising role in the whole of Africa.
It is a very great privilege that the country is now led by men of the quality of Nelson Mandela. I met Nelson Mandela before he went to Robben Island. I knew him as a young lawyer. He is an outstanding man. I saw him walking tall as he came out of prison a free man. He
720
had been behind bars for many years but seemed not to have any bitterness and to care only for the good of his own country and the welfare of his people. I have almost equal praise for Mr. de Klerk, who was at one time the president of the country. It was a remarkable combination of the work of those two men which enabled the people of South Africa to join together.
I believe it was recognised that boycott campaigns and sanctions were extremely important. They hurt but they produced the results. We saw white and black coming together during the elections and it was a wonderful experience. It was not just a matter of the liberation of Africans. It was the liberation of white people and coloured people—in fact, all those who make up the great South African nation. It is right that Nobel peace prizes were awarded to Nelson Mandela and Frederik de Klerk as well as to Archbishop Tutu, who, in his own inimitable way, has had a very powerful influence in South Africa. I admire all of them.
But, of course, Nelson Mandela must take pride of place. He is a man so big, so generous, so charming and witty, with all the right qualities for a political leader, which all too few political leaders possess.
I believe that South Africa, after all these years, is entitled to look for encouragement to Britain, the European Community, the countries of Africa through the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations. Those four organisations, working together, were able to say after the election was over—and it was a funny old election—that it was a free election. It is a real opportunity for the people of that country, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Poole, so powerfully said, have suffered so much, now to be able to enjoy the privileges that go with independence. People will have to be very patient. It will take a long time. I know that it will take a very long time to turn Khayelitsha into a place that is lovely to live in. There are places like Khayelitsha all over the country.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to Bishop Trevor Huddleston, who is now over 80 years old. He has made a great contribution to the anti-apartheid movement, in the broadest sense. I was very proud that he was one of my successors as president of the anti-apartheid movement. He embodied, as did Nelson Mandela, the spirit of co-operation. That spirit of co-operation which the Africans have shown must also be shown now by the rest of the world and Britain in particular.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I must apologise for having come to the House a few minutes after the beginning of the debate. It started rather earlier than I had expected. First, I should like to endorse warmly what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said about the speaker who introduced the Motion and to pay tribute to the very distinguished contribution from the maiden speaker. I was particularly interested by what he said about the failure of the investing community to become alive to the exceptional political cover that ECGD has now offered. I very much hope that that will be put around more widely and taken on board.

721
In the aftermath of a political revolution—whether it is called evolution or revolution, it is part of both in the case of South Africa—I believe that nothing is of more importance than voluntary organisations bringing together expertise from all fields to support the positive proposals of the authorities. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred Ito the paramount importance of the RDP.
I should like to refer to one of the small green shoots that has sprung up in the past five years, bringing together people from every branch of industry, banking, social life, education and the media to help plan together ways of supporting the Government in their ambitious plans. Five years ago an initiative was undertaken to start up something of that kind. Under the surface it has been growing under the very distinguished and experienced leadership of Mr. Louis van der Meere. Apart from having made a great contribution in turning round one of the great utilities of South Africa, he has also worked abroad in many fields and is in touch with many experts of all kinds. Three weeks ago a meeting was held to launch what has been entitled the National Learning Centre in order to establish a network of influential people with responsibilities. Representatives in every key field seek to create a partnership to support development and, in the first place, to produce a three-year development plan.
That framework includes plans for five subsidiary national learning centres in the main centres of South Africa. There are also links abroad. MIT and the global industry network in California have been very much involved in the planning over the past five years and there have been valuable links with an important associate of the London Business School. That National Learning Centre is now getting off the ground, with leaders of the black community and other ethnic communities, to tackle together the fearful problems of economic and social change. They will use the latest technologies that international business is now increasingly harnessing, including scenario planning, systems dynamics, matrix grids and other techniques with which your Lordships no doubt are more familiar than I am. But they are valuable and help to bring South Africa into the international network of business and social leaders.
A new nervous system can be created by that means. I myself know from my experience what has happened in the, relatively speaking, microcosm of the Bahamas, which experienced its own revolution—a revolution without a background of recent oppression but with its own tensions and difficulties after 300 years of the white community being virtually in charge of everything. In that microcosm we managed to come through successfully with a co-operative community between the different ethnic components. It is possible; it has been shown to be possible elsewhere in Africa, both in some of our former colonies and in some of the former French colonies.
South Africa is a special case; the difficulties are perhaps greater than anywhere else. But they can be solved by people working together and this network sets out to give a powerful boost in that direction. I hope that in the support Her Majesty's Government pledged
722
to give, it may be found possible to contribute some seed corn to this new, important and promising initiative.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has been successful in achieving this debate. No one in this House has such first-hand experience of South Africa, Publicly and behind the scenes he has done an enormous amount to restore British-South African relations to their current excellent standing.
The title of the debate might imply that Her Majesty's Government are not doing enough to help South Africa. Many people I met throughout that wonderful country over the past eight days pointed out that our Government have not received their due recognition for how much they have done for South Africa. South Africans do not forget the crucial role our Government played leading up to the miracle election last year, nor do they forget the substantial sums directed to the Peace Secretariat in the pre-election period for training monitors and for the purchase of essential equipment. A substantial number of election observers were funded during the election, of which I was fortunate enough to be one. We have committed £100 million—an enormous sum—to South Africa over a three-year period in addition to training assistance with the civil service, police and BMATT.
I understand that one of the key aims of our assistance is to help with agricultural and land-use development. Some concern was expressed to me in South Africa that various agricultural loans and assistance to other African countries, particularly from the European Union, were ill-conceived and ignored the environment and eco-tourism as a natural resource of tremendous value. One much quoted example is the Okavango Delta where zealous overstocking and agricultural development, driven by European Union subsidies, is destroying a beautiful part of the Botswana environment.
South Africa desperately needs to boost its economy. Millions are without jobs—there is 50 per cent. unemployment in some areas—and in order to prevent civil unrest in the future something dramatic will have to be done. Only tourism has the potential of creating thousands of jobs, offering numerous business opportunities and attracting foreign exchange on such a scale that it will make a major difference to the lives of many South Africans.
So rich is the country in scenic beauty and wildlife that those facets remain the strongest motivation for overseas tourists to visit South Africa. As an eco-destination, South Africa has an enormous responsibility and there is a growing awareness of that among members of the tourism industry. Parties that are directly involved, such as the national and provincial parks, as well as game reserves, are now including the concept of involving and benefiting local communities in their mission statements. It is therefore a top priority for government and overseas aid agencies to help develop tourism in South Africa.

723
I was contacted yesterday in South Africa by the chairman of the South African cabinet-appointed committee looking into the crucial subject of environmental management. He would like to bring a delegation to meet my noble friend Lady Chalker within the next three to six months to make various suggestions as to how Her Majesty's Government can help the South African tourist industry, with particular emphasis on technical assistance and education for those needed in the tourist industry.
The delegation will also comprise a senior representative of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism—indeed, I understand that the Minister himself hopes to come—the Director of the World Wildlife Fund for South Africa, the Director of National Parks, South Africa, and the head of the ANC Environmental Desk, as well as representatives of private enterprise from all backgrounds and races, dedicated to eco-tourism. Costs would be borne by the individual organisations rather than by Her Majesty's Government and I understand that the High Commissioner and ODA representative in Pretoria will be fully consulted. I was in touch today with the office of my noble friend Lady Chalker and hope that she will give all the representatives a warm welcome and an attentive ear.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso for introducing this timely debate today. As we know, South Africa has embarked on an ambitious programme of reconstruction and development which will challenge all of its resources. As my noble friend said, the key challenges for the country are to achieve sustainable economic growth in order to create jobs and reduce unemployment; to build homes for the homeless and to raise education standards, thereby enabling more people to find work.
Self-help schemes and owner-build projects can speed the production of homes and bring employment; creative ideas and technology can help transform the education system. Obviously the solution rests primarily with the South African Government and the policies they pursue. But there is much that can be done to support the process in just the same way as it works in the UK, where our leaders rally voluntary effort and resources from the talented and industrious to run programmes which are of great benefit to society at large.
I realise that the ODA gives high priority to small business in South Africa and is currently working together with local business to fund small development projects. In response to an earlier debate on the Commonwealth with reference to South Africa, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, told us that the ODA already spends a considerable amount of money on education and training scholarships for South Africa as a whole. South Africans too benefit from that fund. I particularly welcome the £2 million the Minister promised on her recent trip to South Africa for tertiary education. However, organisations such as the Prince's Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme could be encouraged to play an important part.
724
Now that South Africa is back in the Commonwealth with Her Majesty the Queen's visit drawing close and in the wake of the Prime Minister's highly successful tour, now could be the moment to form a bridgehead and launch a major initiative to co-ordinate and focus our considerable experience and resourcefulness by helping to solve some of the problems that South Africans, particularly those in rural areas, will continue to face for many years to come.
I recently read with a great deal of interest about an organisation which in many ways parallels the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme; it is called the SIBIKWA Community Theatre Project. It was formed in 1988 as a community-based organisation, helping youngsters up to the age of 25. Funding has come from foreign as well as local South African business.
Basically, SIBIKWA is about education, art and culture. It has a youth development programme which involves full-time vocational training for out of school unemployed youths. Most of the participants in those programmes are from very poor homes with little or no educational skills, and SIBIKWA has managed to encourage many disaffected illiterate youngsters back into the culture of learning, eventually to become useful members of their community.
SIBIKWA provides centres where youngsters can escape township violence and a haven where they can also channel their energy creatively. Students who eventually find work contribute a percentage of their earnings to SIBIKWA, thereby helping it to continue its valuable work. Another SIBIKWA initiative is the street children rehabilitation programme, which speaks for itself. There is also a part-time youth arts development programme for senior school children and a full-time course for children of primary school age. The theatre community programme encourages every aspect of art and drama. Plays have been written and performed and some have also found their way into arts festivals around the country.
I hope that I am not going too far from the essence of the debate, but these ventures, in order to expand and thrive, need funds and by working alongside such projects, we too could benefit. Our own unique trusts have the same objectives and encourage people to use their own initiative rather than just doing the job for them. Is it possible that we could work alongside the indigenous self-help programmes in the new South Africa? The Prince's Trust, with its interest in housing and technology, could have an enormous input. Would the ODA involve itself in those sorts of programmes? Much work needs to be done—for example, community centres need to be built, particularly in rural areas. South Africa is multi-cultural and rich in its diversity. Its art and culture are the sum of its people.
Finally, when I lived in South Africa I felt proud of all things British and I should like some of that feeling to rub off on the new generation.
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for opening this short debate on four important aspects

725
relating to the new South Africa. Like the noble Lord, I spent most of my early life in southern Africa. As a result, I have taken a keen interest in developments over many years. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Poole on an excellent maiden speech.
It is now nearly a year since the first fully democratic elections and I for one am not only pleased but at the same time surprised at bow relatively well the peace process has gone. In view of the short time allocated, I shall try to restrict my observations mostly to the economic part of the debate, though at the same time fully realising that the cultural, sporting and tourist activities are all dependent on economic prosperity.
After years of isolation and sanctions, the country is desperate for foreign investment. It has to be said that some extravagant promises were made by the African National Congress leading up to last year's elections, such as the construction of 1 million new low-income homes over a period of five years. If that kind of project is to be met over the next few years and thus avoid the possibility of further unrest, urgent inward investment will be required.
Companies with previous South African experience are beginning to relocate after the lifting of sanctions. Some institutional investors are beginning to take a cautious approach to a market which has shown a rather slow growth over the past year. A lot of trouble seems to centre around the two-tier monetary system, based on the financial and commercial rand. It is said that the former is having a detrimental effect on inward investment. The gap has recently narrowed between the two rands and I should like to suggest that a good first anniversary present to the economy would be to abolish the two-tier system.
Another major problem which has already been referred to is unemployment. Through encouraging inward investment, the other activities mentioned in the debate will benefit, thus helping to eradicate the unemployment problem. It is unfortunate that recent adverse publicity has centred around two well known ANC personalities, together with the news today of a racial confrontation outside a school near Cape Town. This kind of thing must make potential investors hesitate. Prosperity will only prevail so long as there is racial harmony and respect for each other's cultural traditions. It must be remembered that, unlike other southern hemisphere African countries, there has been a European as well as an African presence for over 300 years. I was therefore sad to read earlier this week that the London Philharmonic Orchestra had arrived in South Africa to find itself at the centre of a sensitive debate over African and European cultures. Both should be treated on an equal basis.
In conclusion, I still urge my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who will wind up for the Government, to set an example so that others may follow in establishing links with a country that in the past had a close association with the United Kingdom.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, on 17th November last year, South African Deputy President Thabo Mbeki wrote to the European Union presidency a letter of the utmost importance. In it he said:
"South Africa … asks to open negotiations with a view to establishing the closest possible relationship with the Lomé Convention".
The case for the Government to take a lead in promoting South Africa's links with the European Union is a powerful one. For reasons of history, investment and trade, Britain has a major interest in the success of South Africa.
The Lomé IV Convention is a 10-year treaty between the European Union and 70 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (the ACP) designed to encourage trade and development and to strengthen political and cultural ties. Because of the enormous importance of the European Union as South Africa's major trading partner, that country now seeks to join the Lomé band.
Although South Africa has a number of developed sectors, its levels of infant mortality, life expectancy, malnutrition, unemployment and illiteracy make it comparable with neighbouring African countries. Ninety-five per cent. of the population of the ACP countries live in sub-Saharan Africa, thus Lomé is largely a treaty between Europe and Africa. To omit from Lomé an African country as critical as South Africa would be perverse.
Trade relations and import duty concessions are the first business of the Lomé Convention. Last month the Institute of Development Studies completed an independent study for the South African Government of 98 South African products identified as being of particular importance for export to the European Union.
The study reports that for three-quarters of those products, friction with ACP countries would be minimal. Moreover, relatively few of those exports would lead to competition with European Union countries. Negotiations therefore need not be as difficult as one might imagine.
At paragraph 87 the report makes the particularly noteworthy finding that the United Kingdom is a significant importer of many of the 98 products concerned and a significant exporter of only a relatively small number of the items. Undoubtedly, this country's overall trading interest is to promote South Africa's relationship with the Lomé family.
One area where Britain should give an urgent lead is in the Lomé IV mid-term review which is due to be completed early next month. A provision should be included in the review which allows for South Africa's eventual accession to the Lomé Convention. A similar clause made some years ago for Namibia provides a model. It would permit South Africa's accession to be ratified speedily once detailed negotiations were completed. Without such a clause, endless cumbersome procedures would have to be undergone and the resulting delay would prove very expensive for South Africa.

727
Another specific area where Britain could take a lead is in the European Union's aid to South Africa. If South Africa were included in the Lomé aid programme, it would compete for funds with the ACP countries, which doubtless would object strongly. Currently, under the European Union's special programme for reconstruction and development, South Africa will receive 125 million ecus (£100 million) for 1995. Britain should ensure that South Africa continues to be aided from that special programme and not from Lomé resources. This exceptional aid needs to be continued at least until 1999, the intended period of the Government of National Unity.
To enable the proper planning of projects in South Africa, this aid should be arranged on a multi-annual basis—in other words, the European Union should commit itself to providing funds over, say, a three-year period.
A key aspect of the convention's trading system is "cumulation" under the Lomé rules of origin, whereby to obtain duty-free access to the European Union, ACP products must be deemed as originating in the ACP. For example, clothing manufactured in Zimbabwe from cloth produced in South Africa is liable for standard import duty on entry into the European Union because South Africa is not an ACP member. To include South Africa within the ACP would undoubtedly open up great new commercial possibilities within the entire region of Southern Africa.
Under the convention, European Union and ACP companies can tender for Lomé-funded works and supply contracts. ACP companies receive a special 10 or 15 per cent. preference. Britain should play a leading role in ensuring that South African companies can bid for those contracts, thus increasing the number of such contracts awarded to African countries. Whether South Africa should get the full ACP preference would be a matter for negotiation.
Britain has played a huge part in the story of South Africa's past. Let Britain now play a huge part in the crucial story of South Africa's future relationship with the European Union.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord St. John Bletso, that I was not present during his opening remarks. I have an excuse in that I was a Member of the Defence Committee of your Lordships' House and was visiting the Royal Yacht "Britannia" where we heard in detail about much of the work which is about to be done. The yacht is shortly off to Cape Town where it will be a base for our Sovereign not only there but in Durban. I know that this is perhaps not relevant to the immediate debate, but perhaps I may make a plea to say how important it is that a replacement for the Royal Yacht is found and arrangements made for the proper representation of the Sovereign not only overseas generally, but particularly in the Commonwealth.
728
I refer also to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, who referred in particular to the Lomé Convention and the ACP arrangements which include everything that I am about to say about the promotion of trade in that country.
My reason for speaking is my experience as an immigrant to South Africa in 1948. That was the year when Dr. Malan arrived and "We are the masters now" were the words which were heard by the Afrikaner. They were only too redolent of remarks that we had heard a couple of years previously in this country. I have some experience at first hand of the Afrikaner. I do not believe that I am going to be too popular, but a word should be said about the Afrikaner, who is a remarkable individual.
I spent some years in an outlying village about 150 miles from Cape Town. It was dominated by a Scots dominey. The society was entirely Afrikaner which lived by the Bible and the gun. It regarded me with great suspicion as an "Engelsman". I am not an apologist for apartheid, but they were in a difficult position. The Afrikaners lived in a country where they were greatly outnumbered and felt beleaguered. They undoubtedly experienced terrible aggression but their response was defensive in order to protect a way of life and not to impose one. Of course, the result of their policy was inhuman to the vast majority of the population. It was imposed out of fear and not out of beastliness. They felt all the more beleaguered as a result of the international reaction. It is a familiar phrase, but they had nowhere else to go. No one in this House today can say that he has nowhere else to go.
That is said on behalf of the Afrikaner, but all that is in the past now. There was the work of Bishop Huddleston and Bishop Tutu and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who was here just now. Not only that, but there was also the shining light of Nelson Mandela while he was imprisoned on Robben Island. We have been shown all too clearly that the vast majority of Africans could not have been supported or educated and brought up to the standard to which they look forward by the Afrikaner or white population of South Africa.
It is for us, as one of the outside nations, to provide millions of pounds and dollars which will be required to satisfy the aspirations and the needs of the newly enfranchised Africans. It is a subject which is far beyond the scope of South Africa. There are the huge problems of housing, education and health which cannot be solved by South Africa, but by outside help. It requires millions of dollars from the United Nations and help especially from our country.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for initiating this timely debate. For those of us in this House who have had a long association with South Africa, the events of the past few years have seemed almost miraculous. I was born in South Africa as my father was before me. He was medical officer to General Louis Botha's commandos in the German South West Africa campaign before coming to England at the end of 1914 to join the British Army. One strand of my family went to Cape

729
Colony in 1840 and another goes back to the first European settlement under Van Riaback by the Dutch East India Company in 1652. That strand contributed representatives to the Great Trek and to the battle of Blood River. It was therefore when serving as the UK Government representative in Rhodesia in 1962, and learning that South Africa had severed its constitutional links with Great Britain by leaving the Commonwealth, that I felt a very real sense of loss.
I like to think that perhaps the events in Rhodesia of those years—the failure of white-led UDI and the transition into a majority rule state in Zimbabwe—contributed to the emergence of the South Africa of today, now back as a member of the Commonwealth, as a democratic state and without any civil war.
But of course it could scarcely have happened without the extraordinary leadership of President Mandela and the statesmanship of Mr. de Klerk. Now, as the Motion reminds us, we have to look to building a new relationship between Britain and South Africa in all the spheres of common interest which we share. There are many. One of our common interests is the stability of the African states south of the Sahara. South Africa is economically, militarily and now politically in a position to wield great influence in helping to solve problems such as the conflicts that exist in Angola and Mozambique. Previously, the South African Government exacerbated the conflicts in both those countries. We should encourage as much as we possibly can the present and future governments of South Africa to play the role of a strong impartial neighbour there and elsewhere in Africa—perhaps in Malawi if there is trouble there in the future, as there may well be.
The South African Government will, of course, be heavily involved in trying to meet the rising expectations of its African population, as many of your Lordships have said, but we should help primarily to ensure that through its membership of various international organisations, including the Commonwealth, South Africa takes on an effective role as the leading democratic state in Africa today.
It is inevitable that the immediate problems which the South African Government face in meeting the demands of the Africans for better housing, education and standards of living, should have priority. The help that we can give is pretty limited, but we have heard some interesting suggestions in this debate. Her Majesty's Government should examine with the South African Government whether the latter believe that special forms of assistance would be of value. I refer to the areas of professional education and technological training. South Africa's universities and industry are of a very high standard.
I do not think that there will be much trouble in encouraging tourists from this country to go to South Africa to enjoy that wonderful country and its climate or in encouraging the Lions and the Springboks to engage in friendly combat in a variety of sports. However, it may be that when the extraordinary personal influence and judgment of President Mandela have become part of history, friendship and understanding between a new generation of South African leaders and those who will be governing at
730
Westminster will be of vital importance. I hope that the creation of a special relationship between Great Britain and South Africa will be a commitment that will be accepted by the leaders of whatever party is destined to govern this country in the immediate future.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord St.John of Bletso for introducing the debate this evening. My noble friend has been tireless in his efforts for South Africa.
I first went to South Africa in 1947 by boat from Southampton to Cape Town. Most people now fly. My sister and brother-in-law did so at Christmas to stay with relatives and on hearing of this debate suggested that to encourage tourism air fares must be reduced. I am indebted to my local travel agent for delving into the minefield of the estimated air fare element of holiday costs. Flying for almost exactly 11 hours, you can go against the wind to San Francisco for £468, with the wind to Bangkok for £848 and across the wind to Johannesburg for £930, which is the most expensive. But the real expense is at the holiday resort.
South African holidays are incomparable, but suffice it to say that they are considerably more expensive than a similar holiday in Kenya. Those high costs may be deliberate in order to restrict tourists, as the holiday infrastructure is relatively small and popular locations like the Victoria Falls Hotel and the Blue Train are difficult to book. The Government might consider encouraging—even instructing—that another British carrier should cover the South Africa route. They might also assist the South African Government to increase the number of holiday destinations.
The Government are to be congratulated on the DTI initiatives of 1994 and the first one of 1995, from 27th to 31st March, in Cape Town to coincide with the visit of the Royal Yacht. The Scots have been to South Africa as well. On a 1994 trade mission organised by the Scottish Council for Trade and Industry, one of the delegates was the managing director of R. B. Farquhar of Huntly, which is well known for prefabricated modular accommodation. It has a quick-build house which it thinks would be ideal for the planned reconstruction and development programme and in helping to reduce the housing backlog of at least 1.5 million families. It could also help to meet the annual demand for 200,000 houses.
I believe that somewhere in the Cape at Christmas a small town was laid out—with streets, streetlights and lavatory bowls in place, but nothing else. Farquhar's quick-build houses could cover 60 lavatory bowls per day, using a squad of 18 reasonably skilled workers. Farquhar thinks that it has the right product—and South African building firms have confirmed that—but it is at present unable to persuade the South African authorities of the merit of its product. Any assistance or advice that the British Government can give will be welcome.

731
Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate would write to me if he does not have the information to hand.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the expectations of the black majority in South Africa for progress over the next few years are enormous and those expectations will not be realised unless there is a strong economy backed by increasing international business investment.
As we have heard, the reconstruction to that end is delegated largely to the reconstruction and development programme, which is based in Pretoria, and is the cornerstone of the programme. For all its good intents, the programme suffers from bureaucracy and, above all, from inexperience. As a result, projects are not taking off with the best of speed, and the RDP is a bottleneck in transforming the aid given by outside countries into improvements on the ground for all those millions who are expecting so much so quickly from the new government: houses, education and services.
If, by the next election in 1999, progress has not been achieved, there will be a great danger of a Left-wing challenge to Mr. Mandela that could seriously affect the future of the country. In time South Africa will finish its honeymoon, and it will leave the immediate news stage as some other theatre becomes more in the public eye. The development that by then has not been achieved may become all the harder to achieve as funds are routed elsewhere. But projects have to be identified, business plans have to be drawn up and feasibility studies made to measure the aid benefit. All this takes valuable time.
There is an office of the ODA in Pretoria administering aid and I believe it would speed the process if the ODA were actively to help the RDP in its own administration. This could be done by seconding officials to the latter. I hope that the Government will consider that.
In 1997 there will be a bid for Cape Town to have the Olympics in 2004. I cannot think of a better or more beautiful place to have them. If the bid is successful, it will attract an investment of 58 billion Rand and create 400,000 jobs. I very much hope that it will succeed. Either way, the reconstruction programme will generate a huge market for all sorts of goods, offering terrific investment opportunities.
There are a great many technologies that are peculiarly applicable to South Africa. They can be passed on to the other countries in the region to their benefit. For example, Eskom, which provides the power for the country, has enough surplus generation to supply its neighbours. It expects to be able to supply an extra 2.5 million households by 2000. That huge electrification programme will provide vast business potential for the makers of appliances, household goods and, of course, electrical supply equipment, some of which will be imported. The supply of electricity comes through a prepaid meter on specially developed technology that is a sought-after export product by other African countries.
732
The technology for cheap housing, which has been mentioned, suitable only for that region is another valuable export which will lead to a big demand in white goods. The spin-off from the South African RDP will reach deep into the whole region, so that money spent in South Africa will help to stabilise and benefit the whole region.
Closer liaison between the ODA and the RDP, working in tandem, would give early warning to British firms of opportunities on the horizon. Such a knotting together of the two interests would benefit the regeneration and the trade of both countries, and it would forge links that would last through the decades that it will take to do the job.
Britain may be the biggest investor in South Africa, but the Japanese and the Germans are investing heavily in the country and buying hotels and businesses. We must not allow ourselves to be pushed into second or third place—as has happened in so many other countries—in a country that has such affinity with and good will to us at the moment and one that is the engine of the half continent. We must not miss the opportunity to establish new bases which can then spread out over the continent.
It is therefore reassuring to see that Mr. Major and Mr. Heseltine have led trade and business delegations, and that last, but foremost, Her Majesty is about to pay a visit to South Africa. The Government merit congratulations on taking those initiatives.
The country is now trying to move out of trade protection and into the GATT. That will cause some agony and may prove too painful. However, the UK has a role to play in helping to ease the way and has already helped South Africa with the European Union. The UK could usefully advise with regard to Europe, to everyone's mutual benefit. South Africa will of course compete with us, but the difference in climate and its special position enable it to complement quite as much as to compete in most spheres of trade. But a word of warning: in many countries aid has led to a crippling debt burden that has undone all the benefit of the aid.
It is essential for the good of South Africa that any loans should be channelled strictly into wealth-creating industry so that any debt can be serviced properly. Otherwise, in our generosity, we shall just create another impoverished country. It is that country's industry, not aid, that must create the wealth to improve its own living standards.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, when I first set eyes on South Africa in 1939 as a young teenager, it was from the sea. Before me lay Cape Town harbour with the magnificent spectacle of Table Mountain in the background. Alas, as my noble friend Lord Kintore has just remarked, few go by sea nowadays: everyone travels by the more mundane method of air travel which, in the case of arriving at Cape Town, is not nearly so exciting.
I wondered what lay beyond the mother city. In years to come I was to learn: the arboraceous scenery of the Cape peninsula; the garden route to Port Elizabeth; the

733
beaches and resorts along the Indian Ocean; the drama of the Drakensbergs; the silence and solitude of the Karoo; the awe-inspiring Kimberley mine—the deepest man-made excavation in the world—and the lusher lands of the north and north eastern Transvaal, which contain numerous reserves with an abundance of game of every description. When one considers that South Africa has excellent communications and a first-rate transport system, it is no wonder that it constitutes a veritable paradise for the tourist.
I am therefore pleased that my noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso, to whom I am very grateful for instigating this debate, has specified tourism as one of the links to be promoted between Britain and South Africa.
Whereas politicians often tend to divide and separate people, sport and the performing arts unite and bind them. I may be right in thinking that the Prime Minister partially agrees with me, because I recall that among the party that accompanied him to South Africa last September was that distinguished footballer and splendid ambassador for soccer, Sir Bobby Charlton. His visit to the townships must have been of great encouragement to all the youngsters there. In recent years, African countries have shown remarkable progress in the World Cup, and I note that Leeds United has two black South Africans on its playing staff. Following his visit to South Africa last year, John Barnes, the Liverpool and England player, stated:
"The skill level was unbelievable, it's an outstanding set-up and best of all they keep stressing the enjoyment factor. In two or three World Cups' time, South Africa is going to be in with a real chance of winning something".
That was high praise indeed from such a fine player. So I hope that we can look Forward to regular exchanges between the clubs and national teams of our two countries.
I trust that noble Lords will forgive me, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, if I admit that compared with my knowledge of soccer, my knowledge of rugby is limited. I confess I watch only when Scotland plays which nowadays is a somewhat chastening experience.
In 1956, I watched the first Test Match at the Wanderers' Stadium in Johannesburg when England, led by the late Peter May, were the visitors. In those days the few African spectators were allocated little space from which to watch, and they invariably used to cheer every boundary scored by the visitors and every wicket lost by the home side. How different it is today! Membership of the Wanderers is open to all, and, amazingly, a new ground has been constructed in the middle of the nearby Alexandra township, which has already been used as a venue for international cricket. There are now black players on the fringe of the national team, so it must be only a matter of time before South Africa follows Zimbabwe in having its first black test cricketer. It is pleasant to record that English professionals have performed valuable work in recent years by coaching in the townships. Now that they will have more time on their hands, perhaps Mr. Gooch and Mr. Gatting can pass on their wealth of knowledge and experience to aspiring young cricketers.
734
I turn now to the cultural scene. Special mention must be made of the Johannesburg Theatre which in the past often proved a thorn in the flesh of the friends of apartheid as well as being a fruitful source of inspiration for many of the country's most distinguished writers. I hope that it may prove possible for it to do a season over here. Musical exchanges have already begun, with the London Philharmonic paying a recent visit, as the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon, mentioned. However, what came as a revelation, to me at least, was a report the other day in The Times of a visit to the first Cape Town opera festival by that paper's opera correspondent, Mr. Rodney Milnes. As he rightly observed, that somewhat esoteric art form had hitherto been almost exclusively associated with the white population, and it is understandable that the Government have other priorities for funding.
One of the festival's four productions was Verdi's "Nabucco", a work in which the chorus plays an important role. In that production the chorus numbered almost 100, with singers of every colour. I find that both moving and thrilling, and the impact of the great chorus Va pensiero must have been truly overwhelming. I wonder what effect even a concert performance of the opera with that choir would have on that most generous and knowledgable of audiences; namely, the London Promenaders.
I realise that while tourism, sport and the arts have a part to play in the new South Africa, there are more pressing ways in which our two countries must be linked; that is, above all, economically. Concerning the latter, I should like to make just two observations in the time available to me. The first is that we must not overlook the commendable part that the South African business community has played in the affairs of the country. More often than not, in its efforts to see justice for all races it has consistently fallen foul of the protagonists of apartheid on major issues. The leading companies have for long had an established policy of social investment on a substantial scale throughout South Africa.
Secondly, it has been repeatedly emphasised how crucial it is that the South African economy should consistently achieve a higher growth rate so that the new government can address the political imperatives of alleviating poverty and extending equality of opportunity to all its citizens, without in any way stultifying growth. But that can be achieved only if the South African Government can reduce the current too-high level of violence and crime so that confidence, particularly among private investors and the international investment and banking communities, can be restored.
Finally, I wish to state a personal belief. We have had close historical ties with South Africa over a long period, which in recent years many would have dearly liked to have severed completely. I submit that we have an obligation to help her overcome the ravages of apartheid and take her rightful place in the world after four-and-a-half decades of darkness and discord. We have had invaluable contributions from all her citizens of all colours during two world wars.

735
When I was in the Navy during the Second World War I often heard my shipmates talking about the wonderful hospitality and kindness that they received whenever they had shore leave. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will play a part in discharging this obligation by helping South Africa towards a future of harmony and prosperity for all her citizens.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Rennet:: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. Eighteen months ago we played together in Cape Town in the parliamentary rugby team. I can assure your Lordships that it was most comforting to have such a ferocious wing forward protecting me from a very large former Springbok forward. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was also one of my protectors.
I wish to concentrate on sporting links. South Africa is one of the greatest of all sporting nations. Yet a high proportion of the population neither watch nor participate in sport. I wish to make a few suggestions, but first it is important to stress the considerable influence wielded in the South African Transitional Government by the sporting personalities and sporting groups in their Parliament.
I believe that the way to the South African heart in Parliament is through sport. Yesterday I spoke to the Member of Parliament in Cape Town responsible for the Rugby World Cup. One of the main points that he mentioned to me was the desire for a high-level sports fact-finding delegation to be sent from the United Kingdom to South Africa.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a further example of the influence of Parliament in sport. The South African national rugby team, which recently toured Scotland, Wales and Ireland, was accompanied by some 50 people, 40 of whom were MPs, and two or three Ministers. ANC and Inkatha Members of Parliament, who had never previously seen a game of rugby let alone knew the rules, played for the South African parliamentary rugby team. In fact, that team beat the Scottish Caledonian parliamentary team for which I was playing. Songs were sung in the team coach and they were rendered in Zulu and Xhosa, which is the local language, by all the players. Of course, being rugby songs, I could not understand them and I do not know how polite they were.
There is a great determination and team spirit within the new South African Parliament; a determination to make the new constitution work. I repeat that sport is not only traditionally the greatest of all bonding influences but that that is particularly the case in South Africa.
From an historical perspective, leading developed countries have not had great success in steering many African countries through the transition from "colonial" rule, as it were, to sustainable democratic and reliable free market economies. I am anxious that after the Rugby World Cup in June and after the final
736
constitution of the South African Government is adopted there should not be a waning of global scrutiny and interest in the welfare of South Africa.
How, therefore, can we prevent this? From a sporting point of view, we are of course already playing a small but active part. For instance, two magnificent cricket grounds have been created in Alexandria and Soweto, funded from the UK. Cricket is flourishing in those townships. The Soweto Cricket Club is one of a number of township teams which has been coached by an organisation under the guidance of the West Indian cricketer, Conrad Hunt. This was financed by a charitable organisation.
The Soweto Cricket Club will be touring in England and Ireland in July. It has raised some £35,000 from one large individual sponsor and many donations. It has the support of two famous names; Dr. Ali Bacher and Sir Colin Cowdrey. Perhaps your Lordships will consider the excitement of these young, previously disadvantaged cricketers touring abroad. Consider their return to their homelands and the role models that they will become to their families and friends.
Ian Botham and Frank Bruno—what do they have in common? I know what your Lordships will say—that they both perform to full houses at the pantomime! They are sporting heroes and role models and they wield great influence.
An African township team or individual will, with help, sooner rather than later become a role model, a sports hero. In this way, with sporting heroes and teams at all social levels, will South Africa, through the spotlight of the media, remain in the public eye.
I wish briefly to make three suggestions for government action as regards the promotion of sporting links with South Africa. I also ask whether funds might be available from the Reconstruction Development Board and whether tax incentives might be offered to sponsoring companies. My first suggestion, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is the setting up of a national soccer coaching scheme. Football is very popular in South Africa. The second is funding and sponsorship with tax concessions for South African township touring teams from a wide variety of sports. The third, and most important of all, is that funds which have already been pledged towards education and schools in South Africa should be used at least in part on sports facilities in those schools.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply. In the expectation that he will use his influence on the sporting front—and I hope that I shall not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Balfour—I suggest that he backs England to win the Rugby World Cup.
5.57 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, Britain has always enjoyed a special relationship with South Africa, imbued with a shared sense of history, culture and language as well as sports.
Apartheid's demise has rightly revived this friendship, as both nations tackle the challenges posed by a reawakened South Africa. Britain's business community stands to gain a great deal once South

737
Africa's economic recovery gathers momentum. However, the pace of economic ascent can be guaranteed only once favourable socio-economic conditions prevail for all her people.
South Africa's planned Reconstruction and Development Programme, referred to by my noble friend Lord St. John and other noble Lords, will be crucial in restoring the nation's self-confidence and aspirations. Her fledgeling multi-racial democracy can thrive only once decades of mass poverty are progressively reversed. Britain has the technical expertise needed to accelerate the national reconstruction project in both public and private sectors.
I believe that the South African Government appreciate that only by deploying an effective system of local democratic government can both urban and rural areas be beneficially served. The apparatus of good governance will be measured by the strides made in areas such as education, health, housing and employment.
Although expectations run high, they should not exceed realistic projections and thus jeopardise the entire healing process. Essentially, the RDP's eventual success depends as much on the people as it does the current administration. Impatient dissension and back-biting has no role to play in the building of a new South Africa.
Human resource development must spearhead the nation's renewal. Apartheid starved South Africa of a skilled workforce and suffocated any hopes for small or medium-sized black enterprise. Joint ventures with black businesses will be vital in safeguarding their prosperous reintegration into the commercial world as well as bolstering much needed capital investment.
However, South Africa's long-term prospects will be determined in the field of education, where the nation's intellectual and practical training has already started. British governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as Research on Education in South Africa and the Professional Development Fund, are providing substantial assistance. Such trends must continue in the pursuit of universal education in South Africa.
The infrastructure must be in place so that the economy can be built upon firm foundations. British experience in health service management will be needed as South Africa focuses on the development of primary health care services. British building companies are already actively involved in South Africa's housing construction campaign, which aims to remove the deprived living conditions still facing many. A vibrant economy provides the most appropriate context for the fulfilment of such wide social goals.
We share deep personal ties with South Africa, but ultimately British strategy must be shaped by entrepreneurial perspicacity rather than by historical sentimentality. We have already acknowledged the importance of developing that economic relationship. Our deep-rooted commitment was underlined by the visits of both the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister last year. Indeed, Britain's pledge of £1.25 billion to South Africa in the form of trade
738
support and aid underlines our dedication. Expanding trade and investment also remain a pressing priority for South Africa.
British sponsored initiatives such as "Opportunity South Africa" have served as timely catalysts. And 1995 signals the year of, "Britain Means Business in South Africa". Those promotions, in conjunction with other trade missions, must be encouraged as market competition intensifies. South Africa is transforming into one of the world's most attractive emerging markets and Britain must not lose the comparative advantage she holds over other established economic rivals.
South Africa is currently enjoying a high level of economic optimism. Present ECGD rates reflect the upbeat mood now sweeping through the international community. Cape Town's bid for the 2004 Olympics, articulating generally the immense potential for South African tourism, embodies the nation's breadth of economic vision. That proposed enterprise alone promises to generate well in excess of £1 billion for South Africa.
Parallels can be drawn with the successful Indo-British partnership and we should pursue a similar line with South Africa. Britain is still her principal foreign investor, but a moment's complacency will see us overtaken by competitors. The key to our market leadership lies in unflinching commitment. Efficient and co-ordinated market intelligence-gathering on the ground in South Africa will predetermine the level of our commercial success on her new economic playing field.
It would be inappropriate to close without thanking my noble friend Lord St. John for taking the initiative with this timely debate. South Africa has a true friend at Westminster.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for initiating this debate. It does not seem so long ago that I had the privilege of staying with the noble Lord in his home at Cape Town. Over breakfast, we looked over Cork Bay to watch whales mating. I mention that only to illustrate the remarkable breadth of activities that one can undertake in South Africa.
As a development spokesman, I find that I am in a rather peculiar situation in this debate and it is one in which I hope to find myself again: I wish to congratulate the Government on the money that they have pledged for aid to South Africa. Indeed, on a recent visit, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, pledged over £8 million to the first of the commitment projects which encompass such areas as business, education, rural development and development in the townships.
While I welcome that aid, there is one question that I should like to ask the Minister. Although £100 million has been pledged to South Africa, will the Minister give an indication of the kind of projects on which the European Union money pledged in aid will be spent?
There is a desperate need for aid in South Africa. Anybody who has visited the townships in South Africa will be struck by the enormous gap between the wealth

739
of the towns and the cities and the dire poverty of the townships. I worked on the borders of KwaZulu and in the local township there was a small hut in which 19 people lived.
Although I call for aid, I do not believe that aid is the answer for South Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Poole, in his excellent maiden speech, put his finger on the eventual means of economic liberation for South Africa; that is, private investment. Only through massive private investment from outside will South Africa realise its economic potential.
Many people have talked about the lack of investment in South Africa. I must admit that I do not find that lack of investment surprising. As I have told the House before, I had the privilege of monitoring the elections there in April last year. One outcome of the peace in South Africa is that we take it for granted that the elections took place peacefully and were so successful. Just a few days before I went to South Africa I was quite scared by the prospect of monitoring the elections in Natal and KwaZulu. At the time, with Inkatha refusing to take part in the elections, it did not seem that they would be as peaceful as they turned out to be.
This is a very wide-ranging debate and I should like to deal with a few of the other points mentioned in the title. I should like to refer to the three major sports played in South Africa. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, I know very little about cricket and I shall not say a great deal about that. However, I should like to mention the sport referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell—football. Facilities for playing the other sports that were mentioned are very expensive. Obviously to play rugby in South Africa a proper pitch is needed, as those members of the inter-parliamentary rugby team who went to South Africa in September the year before last know very well. Indeed they will have the opportunity to find out again. I must declare an interest in that I am vice-captain of that rugby team. There are still places available on the team. If the Minister would like to volunteer, he would be most welcome on our trip to South Africa in May, although I am not sure in which position he should play.
The sport which needs least investment—and I have seen it played in the townships—is football. It is a very popular sport and it needs only a ball to play it. There are flat grounds in South Africa on which it can be played. I received a briefing from the Sports Council and I welcome the measures that it is taking to promote sport there. I notice that as a contribution to promoting football in South Africa, we sent Sir Bobby Charlton as one of our ambassadors. However, it is not a one-way trade. I should like to bring to the attention of the House a recent export from South Africa, Mr. Philemon Masinga. He left Sundowns, was bought by Leeds United Football Club and, indeed, has been a remarkable success. He recently scored a hat-trick in the FA replay against Walsall.
One of the sports that is incredibly popular in South Africa and which leads to a degree of fanaticism is rugby. I believe that that encompasses the point of tourism that has been mentioned in the debate. The Rugby World Cup to be hosted in South Africa is a
740
dream come true for many South Africans. In fact, on my trips to South Africa, and while talking to South Africans, it appears that it has only recently become a certainty that it would ever take place. It is an indication of the strides towards peace that South Africa has made that it is now, without doubt, going to take place in South Africa. However, it will also make many people's minds focus on South Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned the point that, for many people, apartheid closed the door on South Africa; but that closed door led to the end of apartheid.
I was in Mozambique when the referendum took place in 1991. One of the arguments used to convince the white voters to vote for multi-racial elections was the fact that, if they did not do so, they would again be shut out of the international community. However, closing the door on South Africa meant that many people closed their minds against the country as a destination.
I originally went to South Africa in 1990. As a student, I considered it one of the places on earth that I would never visit. I went there due to the fact that I was in Zimbabwe at the time. I had the privilege of seeing Nelson Mandela addressing a crowd in the football stadium in Harare. That was his first public appearance outside South Africa. It convinced me that it was time to visit South Africa to see the changes taking place.
The World Cup will bring a great deal of tourism to South Africa. The country has immense potential for tourism. I believe that that will be one of the growth areas in the future. Indeed, South Africa is not an expensive country to visit. The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, suggested a figure of around £900 for such a visit. It is, perhaps, because I spent a large period of my life back-packing that I know one can actually get to Johannesburg for a great deal less than £500 and then travel on from that point. Moreover, with an exchange rate, when I was over there—and I believe it is still most favourable—of five rands to the pound, it is not an expensive tourist destination.
I believe that there is one area which really needs to be considered. I refer to the development of eco-tourism through the game parks such as Kruger and through the amazing national parks such as the Drakensberg which I had the joy of spending a good deal of time in. Those reserves will attract a great many tourists from outside South Africa. However, with the change in apartheid, there must also be a change in policy as regards those national parks. The local communities can no longer be shut out and fenced out of the game parks. The camp-fire policies that have worked so well in Zimbabwe to include the local communities within the game parks must be embraced. Indeed, embracing the local communities actually helps the wild life. It cuts down on poaching and gives a source of sustenance to the local population.
I should like to conclude by referring to one area in which I believe South Africa will serve a role as regards the rest of Africa. As an economic power, there is no doubt that South Africa will be the engine that leads to the development of many of the countries bordering South Africa. I should like to mention the prospect of an African defence force. South Africa will have a

741
growing role in peace-keeping forces under the UN. I hope that the Minister will give some indication of his support in that respect.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, Perhaps I may, like other speakers, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on his splendid introduction to today's debate and on selecting the item for discussion. The noble Lord gave us an eloquent, informed speech which illustrated his passionate concern for the new South Africa. Indeed, we have heard some fascinating speeches, not least the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Poole. I gather that, these days, one is not allowed to say too much about maiden speeches. However, I enjoyed it, as I am sure did the whole House.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred to the current situation in South Africa as a miracle. It is very close to being a miracle, is it not? It is a miracle which few of us, committed though we were to protesting against apartheid —indeed, I remember on many occasions going with my noble friend Lord Ennals to South Africa House; that is, not inside it but outside—would have believed would happen in such a short space of time.
Proper tribute has been paid during the debate to many people—for example, Bishop Trevor Huddleston, Archbishop Tutu, and, rightly, Vice-President de Klerk; but, most of all, the President of South Africa, Mr Nelson Mandela. I do not have to go any longer to stand outside the gates of South Africa House because a different sort of High Commissioner has been installed. I am delighted about that. Indeed, I gather that he is not too far from us at the present time. All those people showed a great measure of heroism, but nothing could excel the heroism of Mr Nelson Mandela. He, of course, was inspired by the courage of an entire people who, despite appalling privation and state terrorism, never lost their faith.
Is it not remarkable how that man has no feeling for revenge after his terrible years of incarceration? In his recently published autobiography, Nelson Mandela says:
"No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite. Even in the grimmest times in prison, when my comrades and I were pushed to our limits, I would see a glimmer of humanity in one of the guards just for a second, but it was enough to reassure me and keep me going".
Does that not encapsulate the spirit of the man since his release and his assumption of the presidency? Together, he and Vice-President de Klerk, along with his team, are co-operating and beginning to dismantle those hated structures of apartheid. I believe that they are committed to demonstrating how ethnic and national cultures can be mutually reinforcing and can contribute to the establishment of a society based on justice and freedom.
As my noble friend Lord Ennals, said, none of that could have happened without the use of economic sanctions, not least by the United States, which precipitated the situation —a policy that was opposed for a very long time by the noble Lady, Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister. I am delighted that the present Government are taking a totally different
742
attitude. No longer are members of the ANC regarded as terrorists or pariahs; they are regarded as people with whom we are very willing to deal in the new government. However, tensions and difficulties are bound to arise. The very sad events of today exemplify that situation. Indeed, there is a whole range of daunting problems confronting the government in South Africa.
The per capita income of whites is still about eight times higher than that of the Africans. A jobless rate of 39 per cent. exists among the African peoples. About half the population is functionally illiterate as a result of the operation of the Bantu education acts. Two-thirds have no access to electricity. In rural areas something like 70 per cent. of the people eke out an existence below the minimum living level as defined by the Department of National Health. Squatter camps in Cape Town exemplify the joblessness and the homelessness which undermine the Government's endeavours to achieve reform on a peaceful but necessarily gradual basis.
Some minority elements in. the white community continue to harbour hostility to change, although thankfully far fewer than one might have imagined just a few months ago. Substantial elements in the black community are desperately and understandably impatient for change. I think we appreciate all this and it is good that our Government are resolving to play their part in achieving the necessary scale of change in the country. But how is it all going to be achieved? There is an understandable wariness on the part of the present Government of South Africa about taking extensive loans from international institutions because of the consequential debt burden referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and also the impairment of sovereignty.
The government of course do not wish, and could never wish—they could not afford—to turn their back on the millions of their supporters who have achieved their freedom. The government, or at least the ANC part of the government, is opposed to the old "trickle down" economic philosophy. However, they recognise that they have to strike a balance between personal incentives and social redistribution markedly different from the policies followed in the old South Africa.
The policy referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, at the beginning of this debate that is set out in the Reconstruction and Development Programme has to be the foundation of the economic and social revolution which must follow the political revolution. This programme seeks to combine the benefits of growth and redistribution in setting the path towards a more just society. It provides a framework for socio-economic development referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. It sets out objectives for the first five years in, among other things, employment and social policies. It speaks of the need to redistribute 30 per cent. of land holding. I would say in parenthesis that I understand that only about 13 per cent. of the land had under the previous oppressive laws been allocated to blacks. Millions of people had literally been brutally uprooted to eliminate what were called "black spots" from white areas.

743
The task in the economic sense is to create half a million new employment opportunities in the public and private sectors. That requires the electrification of something like 2½ million houses. There needs to be better provision for education, health and social welfare. Again that was touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in his contribution. One of the most impressive priorities set by the government is free medical attention for children under six and for pregnant women. One cannot create the necessary stimulus for enlarging employment and economic opportunity in the country as long as "slumdom" is allowed to be perpetuated. The avowed aim of the government, while recognising these problems, is nevertheless to redirect rather than to increase the budget. That is a hugely difficult purpose in view of the urgency of redressing wrongs which have been suffered for so long.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the opportunities which will be provided in terms of cultural and above all sporting links. I have no intention of accepting any invitations to join any rugby teams. It is an uncivilised game which, as a football supporter and player in my youth, I would never dream of undertaking, and certainly not at the age of 66. Nevertheless it is good that the parliamentary team is playing. How well it plays I am not sure, but it is playing. I am glad that the sporting links exemplified by the recent test matches are being built up. I look forward to the time when there will be sufficient experienced black South African players able to bowl and bat with the best of them, and keep wicket too. That will take time but it will happen. This is all about building on the self-confidence that has been created by the recent scenario in South Africa among the overwhelming majority of people. There is a degree of self-confidence too among the white community which is so pleasing to behold. So much of the fear has gone out of the scene. The black community and the white community overwhelmingly, I believe, want reconciliation.
How do we go about trading with South Africa? A number of useful suggestions have emerged in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Acton, referred to the clear need to renegotiate the relationship with the European Union because South Africa is probably too well off to be admitted to the Lomé agreement, but some new arrangement has to be devised. While South Africa may not be in a position to acquire the swiftly earned prosperity of South East Asia, it is unlikely to be in the position of some countries in Latin America such as Brazil, which is trapped in apparently permanent and massive inequalities of income, not at least in the long term.
South Africa has a high ratio of overseas trade and dependence on foreign markets for its main products, and on foreign investment for growth. It has substantial mineral resources. It has an experienced business community. It has a legal framework which is now widely supported and practised by both Africans and white lawyers of great distinction. It has great natural beauty to attract tourists. It has a strong infrastructure in terms of transport, services and communication. In some industries it has high technological skills. Indeed it even
744
has a strong educational system compared with most other countries of the developing world. All these represent good auguries for the potential influence of South Africa—an influence which I believe will be enormous in the whole continent of South Africa. It is clearly in our interests to align ourselves alongside that country.
There are some faint hearts of course. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, there is the "wait and see" brigade. It is not unreasonable, in a way, to adopt that point of view because of the considerable uncertainties that continue to exist. But the penalties for standing aside could be high in the long term and we would risk being left behind. The United States is adopting a positive attitude. It promises to double United States aid and to encourage investment by American industry. If that happens, and if we are part of it, I like to believe that the favoured scenario is that, in the years to come, South Africa, with its substantial white community, with a standard of living considerably better than that of communities in Western Europe and with a majority of Africans closing the gap and closing it rapidly, will have less poverty, much less racism and less pessimism about the future than there is among so many of its neighbours. It will, I believe, be able because of that to influence its neighbours and its natural allies to follow the right course. Together I think that we can look with optimism to the future of Africa.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am delighted that it now falls to me to reply to this debate on our ties with South Africa which was moved so lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and which has included so much of the expertise which exists in this House.
I am also very pleased to welcome my noble friend Lord Poole in making his maiden speech. He brings wide-ranging experience from the Prime Minister's policy group and the City as well as heartfelt personal feelings for South Africa. I understand that he is also an enthusiastic yachtsman. His contribution to this debate shows that he will not be at sea in your Lordships' House, and we look forward to hearing more from him.
Britain has an enormous admiration for all the South African people and the way they are handling their transition to democracy. They have provided the rest of the world with a fine example of a country moving towards justice, peace and reconciliation.
Last month your Lordships debated the South Africa Bill, which addresses the outstanding legal issues pertaining to South Africa's rejoining the Commonwealth. As I said during my summing up on that occasion:
"the themes that ran through the speeches were those of joy, which must be right, and those of respect for the leaders in South Africa who have effected a most dramatic and historically significant transformation".
It is fitting that the Second Reading of that Bill has been followed by tonight's debate, which looks more closely at Britain's relations with the new South Africa, which, as both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble

745
friend Lord Alport recognised, holds one of the keys to the future well-being of the southern part of the African continent.
In this House there is a great deal of consensus on all sides—not least on the Opposition Benches, reflected in the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Clinton-Davis. Britain is committed to supporting South Africa's peaceful transformation. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister expressed that intention clearly in the speech he made in Cape Town. He promised South Africans that Britain wanted to forge a fellowship for the future with them. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Alport that we are committed to links with South Africa.
Last week my noble friend Lady Chalker went to South Africa to meet the responsible South African Ministers, to develop the dialogue we have established and to discuss the practical details of the help we are giving to that country. She came away with very positive impressions of the efforts being made and of the warm appreciation in South Africa for what Britain is doing.
Britain has close, important and long-standing trade and investment links with South Africa, which of course has the most modern and effective economy in Africa and which is endowed with many human and natural resources. In 1993 South Africa was our 20th largest market, .the fourth largest outside the OECD. Our exports have been over £1 billion for each of the past six years. Our invisible earnings are worth around a further £1 billion a year. During 1994, our visible exports to the end of November had increased by 24 per cent. over the previous year. South African exports to this country are in the region of £1 billion a year. The UK is the largest overseas investor in South Africa. Our investments have an estimated book value of £2 billion and an estimated market value of between £8 billion and £10 billion. All this is a very solid platform from which increased trade can grow.
In July last year my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade quickly demonstrated Britain's wish to strengthen trade and investment links with South Africa by leading a party of 57 British businessmen on a week-long visit. There he launched a trade and investment campaign—Opportunity South Africa. It is estimated that new business opportunities amounting to £500 million, ranging from the straightforward sale of equipment to large-scale investment and infrastructure projects, are there to be grasped. My right honourable friend also announced an additional £1 billion available in ECGD cover. He also announced a British investment promotion scheme to encourage more small and medium-sized UK companies to invest in that country by providing grants towards the cost of pre-investment feasibility studies and the training of local employees. The scheme is administered by the Commonwealth Development Corporation and British Coal Enterprise. It was launched formally by my noble friend Lady Chalker last week in Johannesburg with £2 million of British money.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on his visit to South Africa last December, took with him 16 senior businessmen. During that visit he and President
746
Mandela signed an investment promotion and protection agreement which is aimed at creating favourable conditions for investment by British and South African companies in each country. It will be ratified by both governments later this year. In addition, on 24th January, a full-scale trade promotion campaign called Britain Means Business was launched in Johannesburg amid widespread publicity.
The future of South Africa provides a huge challenge for British business. We must prove that we are equal to that challenge. I am sure that we can be.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, raised a point about the relationship between South Africa, our own country and the LoméConvention. We in Britain are committed to pressing within the European Union for the closest possible trading relationship between South Africa and the Union. In particular, we are pressing for maximum South African access to European markets. Whether the needs of South Africa would be best served by accession to Lomé or by bilateral trade agreements with the EU is a matter for them to decide. Either way, we shall continue to press for the maximum possible benefit from EU aid programmes to be extended to that country.
As a number of noble Lords said, we and South Africa have important shared elements in our cultures, which in turn are an important component in developing relations between us. The British Council is at the forefront of our cultural relations. Its work is in two main areas. The first is in support for training, educational and collaborative projects in the arts. That is the kind of project which the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, described when she spoke about the SIBIKWA project, which the British Government do not know about. I am advised that if the noble Baroness were minded to approach the High Commission in South Africa it may be able to help. The second aspect of our cultural programme is high profile. We have instituted a series of high impact arts initiatives, both in this country and in South Africa.
Another important area of cultural relations between Britain and South Africa is our scholarships programme. The latest figures which are available, for 1992–93, show that there were 609 South African students in Britain, of whom 556 were supported by her Majesty's Government, at a cost of £1.2 million. Most of the students were funded under the ODA's technical co-operation training programme. In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds Helen Suzman Chevening awards.
As a number of noble Lords said, Britain and South Africa have deep and long-established sporting ties. We enjoy friendly rivalry. These stretch from league levels to the grass roots. As both the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and my noble friend Lord Rennell pointed out, these are a unifying influence. There are numerous examples of British support for South African and Southern African sports development.
In South Africa British sporting assistance has included the financing of the Alexandra township cricket ground, part funding of the Vision for Sport conference in Johannesburg in 1993, secondments to the Sports Council of sports development officers from the Johannesburg and Cape Town municipalities, and

747
training for junior sports development officers in sports centre management. In September last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced a UK-South Africa sports initiative to help develop sports training skills in South Africa. A total of £148,000 has been committed to that programme, which is backed by the British Council, the ODA and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The case for sport as a development tool was made by the Commonwealth heads of government meeting Committee on Co-operation through Sport which reported to the 1993 Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Limassol. Its report specifically recommended that the developed countries of the Commonwealth should include sport, particularly in the educational field and using a community-based approach, as part of their assistance packages to Commonwealth developing countries. In South Africa's case, Britain has taken on that responsibility.
Tourism is one of South Africa's fastest growing industries. In 1993, 618,000 people visited that country. This year over 800,000 visitors are expected, with the peaceful change to democracy and the rugby world cup. It will be interesting to see how the teams from the British Isles and South Africa compare. As an Englishman, I was reassured by the prognosis of my noble friend Lord Rennell of what would occur.
I should also like to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that at one time in my career I played fullback, but I ended up in Addenbrookes Hospital with a punctured lung. I thought that it was time to call it a day. Despite the prospect of a trip to South Africa—where I have never been—I had better stand by that decision.
Most of the increased tourism is likely to come from Britain and Germany, which are South Africa's two top sources of visitors, and from North America. The Department of Trade and Industry has identified the tourism sector as offering significant opportunities for UK involvement, as well as being a significant area of growth in that country's economy offering jobs and prosperity. Companies are actively being encouraged to pursue those opportunities within the context of the DTI's Britain Means Business trade and investment promotion. If my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever submits the proposal for the kind of project he described to the High Commission, he may well find that we can proceed and bring matters forward.
Immediately after the South African elections in April 1994, we committed a total of £100 million over three years as the latest chapter in our aid programme to South Africa, which goes back to 1979. Of that, £60 million is bilateral aid and the remainder is our contribution to European Union funds and Commonwealth Development Corporation investments. That is a substantial co-operation programme. It is clear that the South African authorities regard our assistance as a positive and effective contribution to South Africa's reconstruction and development. We are one of the largest bilateral aid donors. On top of that, let us not forget the work of the British NGOs and other voluntary organisations.
748
Our assistance to South Africa is driven by the needs of the South African people. It has always sought to help directly those hurt by apartheid and to enable them to play a full role in South Africa's social, economic and political life. In June 1993, we took a decisive step forward, focusing our aid to South Africa where it is most needed, when we opened the British Development Division in Pretoria. That division works closely with the office of the South African Government's Reconstruction and Development Programme to ensure that our projects and programmes are fully in tune with the Government's priorities. Our assistance is targeted in support of the Reconstruction and Development Programme and is channelled through both non-governmental and governmental organisations. There is much to be done, and we shall play our part fully.
On 20th September last year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Mandela signed a memorandum of understanding on development co-operation which set out agreed areas of focus for our bilateral aid. Those areas are: education, health, good governance, including assistance to police reform, enterprise development (which is especially important given the high level of unemployment to which a number of noble Lords alluded), land and agriculture.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, visited South Africa last week to sign a further memorandum with Mr. Jay Naidoo, the Minister responsible for the reconstruction and redevelopment programme, setting out the arrangements to deliver that help. It is the first agreement of its kind concluded between South Africa and a donor country. She also emphasised the overriding requirement for the programme to be backed by sound macroeconomic and administrative policies, without which it cannot succeed. My noble friend also announced that Britain would provide £2 million to help strengthen capacity at provincial and local government level to implement the Reconstruction and Development Programme and over £1 million to support the establishment of a rural strategy unit within the Orange Free State. Those are the first major aid projects to be announced under our bilateral programme.
About a third of our funds in South Africa are currently spent on education—a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. Our assistance is intended to increase access for disadvantaged South Africans to education and training opportunities and to help improve the quality of education. Agreed areas of focus for support are, first, enhancing the capacity to develop, improve and manage national provincial education policy; secondly, improving the quality and content of maths, science and language education at school level; and, thirdly, increasing provision of education and training for those previously disadvantaged by apartheid.
Examples of current initiatives are projects to improve the quality of English language teaching in black schools in rural areas and to improve science teaching in secondary schools through improved classroom materials and better training for teachers. We also support a number of schemes for scholarship and training. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, announced

749
during her visit to South Africa last week a further contribution of over £2 million to the tertiary education fund of South Africa. I hope that that will meet some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. Those will provide bursaries and loans to some 1,200 students in 1995. They are earmarked for those students from the traditionally disadvantaged communities pursuing studies in the fields of science, education, engineering and medicine.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me to relate the European Union's aid policies with those of the Government in their bilateral aid. Bearing in mind the time, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall write to him to explain that.
Of course, it is not only aid which helps the South African people. It is trade and the workings of the market economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Poole, pointed out. I have already mentioned the wide-ranging steps that the Government are taking to assist trade with South Africa which we are linking with an additional £1 million worth of export credit guarantees. That expansion in bilateral trade will be a major catalyst in helping all South African citizens to improve their lot. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, commented, growth is the key to South Africa's success, and trade will be an essential engine to generate that growth.
A significant programme of parliamentary links is being developed. As noble Lords are aware, British South African and British Southern African parliamentary groups have been set up to re-establish and develop closer ties between our Parliaments. Another area where assistance and links are building is that of military assistance, where Britain provides a military advisory and training scheme (BMATT) to help the integration of South African armed forces, transforming erstwhile enemies into colleagues all committed to supporting the new non-racial democratic South Africa. As I am sure your Lordships can imagine, that is a difficult and daunting task.
The question was raised about the role that South Africa might play in the future peace and stability of the Southern African continent. Since South Africa's return to the international community, its new government have committed themselves to playing a major role in the preservation of peace and stability within the UN framework, in particular in the Southern Africa region. South Africa has already given strong diplomatic support to conflict resolution, as was shown, for example, in the resolution of the recent crisis in Lesotho, and will surely, once the integration of its armed forces is complete, play its full role in peace-keeping operations.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Minister responsible for Science and the Public Services, is to visit South Africa from the 26th February to 2nd March. His visit follows the Prime Minister's trip to South Africa last year when he stressed the importance of close scientific links between the two countries. The Minister will be accompanied by Sir William Stewart, the Prime Minister's chief scientific adviser, and a high delegation of British scientists and business people. The visit will build on existing scientific trade links between our two countries and will
750
establish areas for future joint scientific work which, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough pointed out, has great potential.
I have now explained in some detail what we are doing. We are seeing a steady expansion and flowering of relations between Britain and South Africa, which is warmly welcomed on both sides. At the end of March, Her Majesty the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, will pay a state visit there, the first such visit for nearly 50 years. We believe that this visit, which we know is eagerly awaited in South Africa, will set the seal on the revival of an old and mutually beneficial friendship between our two countries.
Let me conclude by quoting a senior South African official, speaking at the recent launch of a training course for athletics coaches in Johannesburg. He mentioned the large number of overseas visitors South Africa now receives and the extravagant promises they make, and added, "But the Brits deliver". I am sure that all noble Lords share my pride in this confirmation of the esteem in which our country is held, which is evidence of the concrete value of our endeavours in South Africa.
South Africa and its people have behaved magnificently in overcoming racial injustice, bitter division and human folly. This all points the way towards hope and reconciliation among its people. They have the heartfelt good wishes of the British people, as has been so clearly reflected in the debate. We in Britain have shown our willingness to help. They deserve our support, and they will continue to receive it.
6.48 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, this has been a most informative debate. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated. I would like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Poole, on a most interesting maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear more from him in the years to come. I am also delighted that the new South African High Commissioner, His Excellency Mendi Msimang, has been present to listen to the debate today. I wish him every success in his posting in this very important time for South Africa.
It has been a classic debate for hereditary Peers representing all age groups and all professions, from the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who was an international rugby player and played against the Springboks in 1962, to my noble friend Lady Wharton, who was at my sister school in Cape Town. However, that is not in any way to decry the valuable contributions of the two life Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lard Clinton-Davis, both of whom made most interesting and valuable contributions.
I should like to have made further mention of individual contributions, but that ground has been admirably covered by the Minister. I note that I have precisely two minutes in which to wind up this debate that has taken a full two-and-a-half hours. I would like to thank the Minister for his extensive reply and also the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his valuable contribution. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness,

751
Lady Chalker, who has played such an important role in fostering and developing British relations with South Africa.
Clearly, there is a general appreciation that South Africa has made remarkable progress in recent months and over the past year—not least in going so far in reconciling what was only recently a bitterly divided society. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to assist the new government in every possible way. I am confident that, with a little luck, South Africa will eventually repay such support with interest.
The South African Government must meet vast expectations in terms of providing housing, jobs, education, improved health care and land reform, all of which are incorporated in the reconstruction and development programme. This is a tall order in the short term. But with the continued support of the international community, I am confident that these targets can be achieved. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
6.51 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Limitation]:
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("the passage of this Act") and insert ("this Act comes into force").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 2, which is in my name, together with that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. At the same time, noble Lords may also care to cast an eye upon Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which relates to the same subject. I need not explain the amendments; they are completely self-explanatory. I should just like to add a word or two as to the motivation for putting them forward.
As noble Lords will know very well, the War Crimes Act 1991, to which this Bill is supplementary, was a House of Commons measure; it was passed there by a large majority, and was not welcomed by this House. However, it became law under the constitution and it must be accepted as such. I feel absolutely convinced that none of your Lordships would wish to treat it otherwise. It is the law, and we would not wish in any way to undermine it or stultify it at this stage. It was in that spirit that I looked at the Bill.
When I first saw Clause 1 as originally drafted, I must say, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that I thought it was perhaps a little confrontational. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish it to be so. I am also sure that noble Lords would wish to avoid any appearance of confrontation or of attempting to stultify the Act of 1991. In that spirit, I
752
thought of introducing the idea of a closing period—a decent period after the Bill comes into force—which would establish a limit for prosecutions under the Act.
The fact that I introduced this clause in the amendments was intended to reflect the opinions of many noble Lords who spoke on this Bill at Second Reading, when, as noble Lords will remember, there was a very extended debate. It was also my intention to reflect a good deal of the feeling in the other place when the 1991 Act was debated, and when it was emphasised, not once but many times, that there was a need for urgency and speed in disposing of this matter.
I note also that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his Amendment No. 3, follows in effect the language of Amendment No. 1 and does not seem to disagree in principle with the establishment of a time limit—though the noble Lord has a different period to put before your Lordships. I note also that there is no amendment before the House to delete Clause I of the Bill, which is the clause that would remain were neither of our amendments to be accepted. The principle of introducing a moderate—a reasonable—period might be acceptable to the House.
As to the period itself, I chose the period of three months: one has to think of some figure, and that seemed reasonable, giving us in effect about six months or slightly longer from this time. It also seemed to bear some relation to the timetable, in so far as we know it, of the investigations, the prosecution considerations by the CPS, and so on. I will not enlarge upon that; noble Lords will have the dates in mind, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, or the noble Baroness may wish to amplify the point. That was the basis on which I ventured to select the period of three months.
I suggest with all respect that this is not an undermining amendment. It is not one that stultifies or repeals the Act of 1991. (I take those words from previous debates.) It is well within the intention of the present Bill, as expressed by many noble Lords at Second Reading, and I believe that it reflects a good deal of the intention of the other place as expressed in 1990. So far as concerns the Government, I think I can safely say that the amendment renders the present Bill less unacceptable than it would be without it. I do not pretend that I shall go over the edge to "acceptable", but it makes it "less unacceptable".
I shall pay very great attention to what is said about the amendment by the noble Lord who is the sponsor of the Bill. I was very cheered and heartened when he decided to add his name to it. If he has any comment or suggestion as to its future course, I will of course pay very great attention. At this point I beg leave to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Government are committed to opposing Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and also Amendment No. 3, for the reasons already given at Second Reading. The Government will countenance for all time, without limitation, that suspects who have the presumption of innocence, however so long investigated, and whensoever investigated, or to be investigated, may be

753
charged and tried under the Act. In so doing, they will keep, so to speak, the cell door ever open, if not, at least, ajar.
Noble Lords may well think that the crucial point in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, on his motivation for introducing Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 was the affirmation of the rectitude in introducing some period of limitation to end an extraordinary situation which could not have been envisaged. For, as noble Lords may remember, when this Bill was before Parliament some five years ago, both Houses were assured that, on the evidence then available but not disclosed, these trials were then warranted. It was assumed that they would ensue with dispatch in accordance with our concepts of justice, and that they would be fair.
That point was strongly insisted upon by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whom we are delighted to see in his place this evening. We hope that he has recovered from his unnerving experiences. By his amendment, as I understand it, he accepts, as my noble and learned friend said, the principle of Clause 1 of the Bill as well as its other provisions. I shall listen, as I always do, with deference and respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may say in due course. But, as at present advised, I should not be prepared to accept his amendment, for reasons which perhaps I may give later. However, I am very much indebted to the noble Lord for his support in principle, of the Bill.
With regard to proceedings before Parliament, some five years ago it was not envisaged by another place that the police investigations, which were set up in 1988, would continue in one form or another until today; that, notwithstanding the ending of the specific police grant funding for the unit on 31st March this year, the investigations would continue thereafter; that no steps would be taken to expedite any decision by the CPS on whether to seek the consent of Mr. Attorney to the institution of proceedings; and that the Government would be content to be unable to say when any such decision would be made. To save time, I refer your Lordships to the Official Report of the other place on 12th January at col. 266 and to a letter dated 13th February 1995 that I received yesterday from the Home Office.
Again, some five years ago it was not envisaged by the other place that today there would still be 21 suspects in England, 15 of whom have been under investigation since 1988, and who had been candidates for prosecution since before 29th June 1994, when all those living in Scotland had been excluded by the Lord Advocate. It was not envisaged that two investigations would have been instituted as late as last year, 1994; nor indeed that further investigations could be initiated for all time in the future. That was never within the possible contemplation of the other place or indeed of your Lordships' House, having regard to the manner in which the Government then put forward this Bill.
If charges are to be laid this year within the period of the proposed amendment, we are looking at a delay of some 52 to 57 years before substantive trial. Your Lordships may well feel that these amendments, as the noble and learned Lord said, afford a modest and
754
reasonable opportunity for the CPS and Mr. Attorney to decide whether to charge on the available evidence. They are not stultifying amendments; they are not confrontational amendments; and they are not unreasonable amendments. Indeed, they all but commend themselves in the name of justice.
7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, having been engaged in activities which I assure your Lordships in some cases were not so pleasant as addressing your Lordships' House, I was not able to participate in the previous proceedings on the Bill. I appreciate the courteous remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who always speaks with courtesy. Sometimes he makes comments with which I do not agree, but they are always said with great moderation.
I should like to make it absolutely clear—otherwise I should be insincere—that I have never liked this Bill. Having said that, I believe it to be the duty of this House, when a Bill is presented to it, whether it be a private or a public Bill, to ensure that it is in the best possible state before it goes to another place. I have taken it for granted that when your Lordships allowed the Second Reading of the Bill, they approved of the principle of the Bill. I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House takes a respectful view of what the House did at Second Reading. Accordingly, in my judgment, it is the duty of every Member to try to ensure thereafter that, if the principle has to be admitted, at least the Bill leaves this House in the best possible state. Therefore, my amendment is not meant to be a wrecking amendment. It is meant to be an improving amendment.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships my reasons. In the first place, as a lawyer—a humble one in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but one who, in all humility, insists upon saying what he has to say—I find that at the very least the House should be very wary about the question of limitation in regard to heinous offences, which has not been admitted in our law over the centuries. There is no statute of limitations that applies to murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide in our law. But we have made an exception, in agreeing to the principle of this Bill, so that the heinous war crimes of which this House is very well aware should have a limitation period attached to them.
Therefore, my first reason for tabling my amendment is to ensure that, if we have to admit that principle, as long a period as is reasonable ought to be put on the face of the Bill, so as at least to show the Bill's unusual nature. When it goes to another place, we should realise that we are doing something very exceptional, as I said, by allowing as long a period as is reasonable. I should have thought that a 12-month period, from the date of Royal Assent, was right.
My second reason advanced for that period is that it does no harm. If we agree to the limitation period and that Clause 1 of the Bill provides adequate time for a prosecution to be brought, we ought to give as long a period as we reasonably can. Your Lordships will bear in mind that there are investigations taking place and it would be quite wrong to cut them off if they are likely

755
to lead to a prosecution out of respect for those who are conducting the inquiries. I refer, of course, to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and thereafter the final sanction of the Attorney-General, for whose judgment I hope your Lordships would always have respect.
Are we doing any harm as regards the rest of the Bill by allowing 12 months after Royal Assent? Clause 2 declares that the Crown Court can have jurisdiction to quash the indictment on the grounds it sets out. It was conceded on all sides that although the insertion of that clause does no harm, it certainly adds nothing to our law because that is the right of the Crown Court in any event. There is thereby no harm done in regard to Clause 2 in having an extended period of limitation.
When we consider Clause 3—the only other operative clause in the Bill—we see that it gives a certain jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to deal with cases where there is doubt as to whether there is likely to be a fair trial. Either that is something which ought to be given in all criminal cases because it is a just procedure, or it is not. As it stands, it is a right which is limited to war crimes. Either it is right that the Court of Appeal should have that jurisdiction—at the moment it only has jurisdiction after conviction—or it is not. If it is right and it is a sensible procedure, then we should have time to consider the matter in Parliament and apply it to all criminal cases. Why should it be selected only for war crimes? Again, an extended period would give the opportunity, if Parliament so decided and so wanted, to deal with that procedural point which may or may not be an improvement to our criminal law.
Having spoken to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I tabled my amendment for consideration by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, as to whether, having heard what I have to say —I say this with great respect to them—they can concede the amendment so that it will go to another place with your Lordships at least having shown that, when admitting this principle, your Lordships have been careful to ensure that an unjust precedent is not set.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask him formally to move his amendment in due course so that I may reply to it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I understand it, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 must be taken first and I cannot formally move my amendment now. However, if the noble Lord wants me to make a promise to him, I shall promise to move my amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is naturally entirely correct that there is no limitation of actions in cases of murder or manslaughter. He asks what is the distinction. I think there is an answer. Murder and manslaughter can be, and regrettably are, committed at any time. I can think at the moment—though I am sure somebody may put me right—of no other crime which in its nature cannot have
756
been committed less than 50 years ago. That is why war crimes are peculiar. That is why a distinction does, in logic, have a place.
I am glad that the Bill was tabled. The 1991 Act was passed at very nearly the last moment when it could effectively have been put into execution. Our expressions and appearances change with the passage of time, and so do our memories. It is entirely compatible with the passage of that Act to hold that it may have been enforceable at the time, but that as time goes on so we reach a point where it cannot practically be done. It is a valid principle that there is no such thing as a crime so dreadful that an innocent person should be convicted for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked what harm it could do. But he answered the question himself. He said that accepting the amendment would put a special mark on the Bill; he did not say a mark of disapproval, but he came very near to saying that—so near that he answered his own argument.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have not previously participated in debates on this Bill. I hasten to say that I do so now in a purely personal capacity and certainly not from the Front Bench. These issues are not within my responsibilities. But I wish to add my support to what was said by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I notice that he said that he rose with great humility because of his modesty as a solicitor in the presence of some extremely distinguished lawyers in this place. Where that puts me I am not quite sure because I was his articled clerk only a few years ago. However, while I did not always agree with him then, I do so in relation to this matter.
Looking back to the time when we debated this issue when the War Crimes Bill was before us, like him, I was not unduly enamoured of the Bill. I felt that there was a danger that there would be a transfer of sympathy from the true victims of these horrendous crimes to people who may not deserve that sympathy. I felt too—I say this with great respect to some noble Lords who spoke in that debate—that in the light of some of those contributions I was impelled to vote for it, notwithstanding my reservations about it.
I also felt, perhaps as a former Member of another place and still having some of the sensitivities of that place, that it was a dangerous precedent to engage in a confrontation with the will of the House expressed not once but on several occasions. I believe, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said in a very moderate way, that this is close to becoming precisely that all over again. This House must watch itself. We must be extremely careful about engaging in confrontations of this kind.
Something was said tonight, notably by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the danger of an unfair conviction after all this time. That depends on the evidence, the view that the jury takes of the evidence and the way in which the jury is directed on the evidence. Consequently, I do not believe that there is a risk of a miscarriage of justice in the way that the noble Earl envisages. One of the points which the learned

757
judge presiding over the trial will make is that the jury must be extremely careful because of the passage of time. That goes to the heart of the matter.
We are dealing with crimes of unprecedented savagery. Therefore, in my judgment we must take careful note of the will of the Members of another place who expressed strong views about the matter with overwhelming majorities. I believe that it is an abuse of our criminal law to talk of periods of limitation. I may have strayed over the bounds of propriety because this House has—in my view misguidedly—given a Second Reading to the Bill. I believe that it is a thoroughly bad Bill and I hope it will go no further once it reaches another place.
I fall back on the position that my noble friend adopted, he probably shares my views in principle about the matter. Today we are constrained and I support the constrained amendment that he put forward.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise without premeditation and with considerable trepidation to disagree with one point only in the speeches of my noble friends Lord Mishcon and Lord Clinton-Davis. It is about the status of the Second Reading of the Bill in this House. Those of us who did not oppose the Second Reading cannot be said thereby to have given approval to the Bill in principle. In my brief intervention when the Bill came before us a second time, having received a large majority vote in the elected Chamber, I said—and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said much the same thing—that it was extremely unwise of this House to oppose the Second Reading again and thereby bring into play the Parliament Act 1911. It was unwise and I still hold that view. At the same time, I have to recognise as a matter of practical legal possibility that the chances of a significant number of successful prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991 are very low. They are low for the reasons that have been expressed.
However, the Bill is a Private Member's Bill. It did not seem to me to be appropriate—speaking from the Front Bench in a personal capacity, as we always do on Private Members' Bills—to suggest that your Lordships should reject this Private Member's Bill at Second Reading and therefore exclude the possibility of amendment at Committee, Report and later stages. Therefore, with the deepest respect, I say to my noble friend Lord Mishcon that he need not worry about this House having given approval to the Bill in principle. His amendment is a modest one because he thinks that that is how the Bill should be amended. But he should not be deterred from even wrecking amendments if he believes them to be necessary, just because the House has given the Bill a Second Reading.
The amendment is at least an improvement on the rather dangerous confrontational precedent which is introduced by the Bill. I therefore hope that the House will support it and that the movers of the first amendments will agree that it is an improvement, particularly on Amendment No. 2.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it takes a prosecution to bring to an end the false hope that one can punish people for crimes committed over half a
758
century ago. We are dealing with the unreality of the present situation in the false hope that if we bring someone to trial, our sense of duty and our conscience will be at rest.
In Canada, the first and only case showed how futile the whole process of prosecution was. The last time I spoke on the subject I asked noble Lords to bear in mind one practical aspect—the position of the jury with whom rests the duty of reaching a verdict. Experience has shown that such trials last month after month, imposing on a jury an almost impossible mental, emotional and physical strain. When we hear the verdict, it may give rise to a feeling of deep resentment, not that there has not been a fair trial, but that the verdict has not been right.
In Canada, after months of reflection on their verdict, the jury came to a unanimous decision—to find the accused not guilty on a large number of charges. There was an immediate reaction among the representatives of the Jewish fraternity in Canada, demanding that the Government should exercise their right under the constitution to order a new trial. It is incredible how far human emotion will drive people along the path of futility and purposeless endeavour. We all feel strongly about what happened, but we were not part of it. We hoped that punishment would come to those guilty long ago. I fear that we shall continue toying with the subject of war crimes indefinitely until there is no one left or there is a disinclination on the part of society to continue that futile course any longer.
I cannot think that noble Lords, with their keen imagination and great experience, could contemplate going into a trial which could last six to nine months. It would take six months to hear the evidence in trials of unprecedented complexity, with problems of language, of bringing witnesses hundreds of miles, of video tapes and all that apparatus, to try to bring to bear upon the jury the idea that the evidence is conclusive.
I support the amendments. I supported the amending Bill, I opposed the original Bill. I felt that it was a great privilege to submit to your Lordships the course of understanding but of sanity. We accepted it but the House of Commons overruled our decision and we had to accept that. But the efflux of time is rendering the proceedings sad and useless. Can we not bring down the curtain on the attempt to bring war criminals to trial? History has its verdict, there is little one can do to ageing people to make them feel the horror and shame of what they did.
I do not know whether we are old enough yet to remember some of the things that we did years and years ago. I have memories of things that I did that I cannot comprehend. I cannot believe that I did them. The person who committed some of the things I did was not me! Fifty, 60 and 70 years go by-96 years go by—and we change in that time and we are not the same people. It is playing about with the emotional make-up of humanity to go on with this.
I am sorry to take that view but I wish that world Jewry would accept the fact that history must now bury its own dead and let us get on with life as it is with thousands of war crimes having been committed in the meantime. It is war which is the crime, and as long as

759
there is war, crimes will be committed. There was Bosnia and the Gulf. It is shameful and shocking. There is a catalogue of crimes of recent wars which we shall never be able to tackle. I wish that we could see the sense of this matter and lead world opinion on it. I wish that we could tell the Australians and Canadians that they can bring their responsibilities in this direction to an end with honour and understanding.
I hope that we shall take a decision in the interests of our own integrity. The elected Chamber has not got all the sense in the world. I used to hear that 50 million people cannot be wrong—50 million people can be wrong! They are mostly wrong. It is here, with our sense of reality and common sense and our vast experience of life, that we can express the true verdict on this situation. For heaven's sake, let us do it!
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, perhaps I may start by associating myself with the good wishes and the pleasure which we all take in seeing the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, back in his seat and participating in our debates.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would be that the investigating and prosecuting authorities would have three months—or if we accept the other amendment, 12 months—longer than otherwise to continue with inquiries and bring charges as appropriate in relation to the War Crimes Act 1991.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was absolutely right. Clause 2 is a declaratory clause and that point was made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he referred to it. However, there is an anomaly, in that Clauses 2 and 3 would apply in relation to applications to quash indictments made three, or 12, months or more after Royal Assent, but not to applications in the immediately preceding three-month or 12-month period. I am sure that that was not the intention of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. If that needs putting right I am sure that he will see to it at further stages of the Bill.
I should perhaps emphasise lest there be any doubt whatsoever, that it should not be assumed that war crimes investigations will necessarily be concluded when funding, in the form of police specific grant for the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit ends on 31st March 1995. As to whether police officers will be made available beyond that date to finish investigations and support any prosecutions, that would be a matter for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
But the Government's position remains that the investigating and prosecuting authorities should not be subject to a time bar on their inquiries or the bringing of charges. These amendments in no way therefore overcome the principled objection which the Government have to Clause 1 of the Bill, which, with or without the amendments to Clause 4, would effectively repeal the War Crimes Act 1991.
760
Amendment No. 1 is merely a consequential amendment. It does not affect the principle behind the clause, which is that, with the coming into force of the clause, no proceedings may be instituted in relation to the War Crimes Act 1991.
Therefore, with or without the amendment, the clause is unwelcome to the Government as it stands. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway reminded us that I said on 7th December 1994 at col. 1007 of Hansard that the clause would set a most unfortunate precedent. We do not have a time bar on the institution of proceedings in the United Kingdom for murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide nor do we wish to depart from that principle.
The clause, if enacted, would create an exception for people who did not have British nationality at the material time. They would again be immune from prosecutions, thus rendering the War Crimes Act ineffective. Parliament did not intend at the time when the War Crimes Act was enacted that the police and the independent prosecuting authorities should have a prescribed period of time in which to carry out their investigations into war crimes and bring charges as appropriate. The Government's position in relation to the Act is clear. It is that those who committed most terrible crimes in Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War cannot be allowed to use the privilege of residence in the United Kingdom to escape justice.
In response to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, justice and fairness must be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, the work of the police, that of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and, if appropriate, the courts themselves. This is a Private Member's Bill and, as is consistent with the conventions of this House, I shall not be opposing these amendments.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am very much indebted to all those who have spoken on these amendments. As between the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and myself there is no difference whatever. I am very happy to agree with the way in which he put the case, which was far better than I did in opening. On principle we are totally agreed. The only difference is the period and whether it should be three months or 12 months.
As regards other noble Lords who have spoken, we have had the consolation of hearing some of them say that at least these amendments make the Bill better. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, like many of us, did not like the Bill at all. He said that at least it was a great improvement to take either our amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. On that basis I am content to commend the matter to the House.
With reference to the danger of confrontation which was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, of course that is a very real consideration. I mentioned it in opening. I suggest that the point I made is a valid one; namely, that our amendments make the Bill less confrontational than it was before. It may be that it is still open to objection and it may be that another place will turn it down. This is an improvement on the Bill and as such we commend it to the House.

761
As regards Clauses 2 and 3, it is clear that Clause 2 is not affected in any way by either amendment because it states only the common law anyway. As regards Clause 3 and our three-month amendment, it is very unlikely to cause any difficulty because, for a case to get to the Court of Appeal after a hearing by a judge of first instance, three months is bound to have elapsed anyway. Therefore there is no practical problem. If 12 months were chosen, there might be a difficulty. In that case it would be necessary either for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to produce an adjustment to Clause 3 at Third Reading to take account of that difficulty.
I suggest that your Lordships need not be worried as to the implications of Clauses 2 and 3, but should vote on the simple question whether my amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord. Mishcon, is or is not an improvement to the Bill. On the basis that it is, although no doubt a modest one and one that leaves difficulties with the Bill, still an improvement, I commend Amendment No. 1 and later Amendment No. 2 to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1 at end insert:
("(3) This Act shall come into force three months after Royal Assent.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be guided on this point. I understand that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was anxious to speak to Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am not sure whether he was hinting that 12 months is preferable to three months, but my understanding is that if we accept this amendment, the next amendment may fall—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am advised that it will not, and that it is possible to speak to both amendments.
Lord Campbell of Ahoway: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may explain my position. I, so to speak sub silentio, in view of the way in which the debate ranged and the time available, have waived my respectful request and I personally am prepared not to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The noble arid learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has, in effect, dealt with the situation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert:
("(3) This Act shall come into force twelve months after Royal Assent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to address your Lordships again on the amendment, but there is something that I feel that I must say and I think that it will meet with the approval of the whole House.
We have been discussing the dreadful effect of the passage of the years. When I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I realised that years mean nothing to some Members of your Lordships' House. Although he spoke in terms which were contrary to the view that I put, I pay him the respect which I believe the House always has for his speeches. We hope that he will go on making them for many more years to come. Having said that, I beg to move.
7.42 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that, having agreed Amendment No. 2, the wording of Amendment No. 3 is changed as follows:
Amendment proposed: Page 2, line 1, leave out the words last inserted and insert the new words as printed on the Marshalled List.
The Question is, That Amendment No. 3 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think that the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
7.46 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Incorporation of European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("1950") to ("and") in line 9.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Perhaps I may explain that these are purely technical drafting amendments, which arise as follows: Clause 1(1) (a) in its present form refers to Section I of the European Convention on Human Rights,
"(as amended by the Third, Fifth and Eighth Protocols to that Convention)".
In fact, however, Section I of that Convention, which is set out in Schedule 1, has not been amended by any of those protocols. Other provisions of the Convention have been amended, but not Section I. It is therefore unnecessary to include in the Bill the words in brackets. That is why Amendment No. 1 is necessary.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are consequential. Schedule 1 should begin "Schedule I of the Convention" rather than "The Convention". Again, the words in brackets in line 5 of the schedule are unnecessary for the reasons that I have sought to explain.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: These amendments are entirely acceptable as they do not conflict with Amendment No. 2 which I propose to move in due course.
Baroness Blatch: Am I right in assuming that Amendments Nos. 1, 11 and 12 are being taken together? I understand that they are purely technical amendments. The current references in the Bill are effectively redundant in that the Third, Fifth and Eighth Protocols relate only to articles in Section III of the convention, which is concerned primarily with procedural matters. Although the Government believe that the Bill itself is unnecessary, in the context of the Bill, the amendments are eminently sensible.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 13 to 25 and insert:
("(2) The provisions set out in subsection (1) above shall—

(a) serve as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation; and

(b)be taken into account in equity and at common law, so that effect may be given to them in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom in accordance with the principles established by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

(3) For the purposes of this section the procedure at first instance and on appeal shall be governed by such Rules of Court or Practice Directions as may be made.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13 to the Title which is consequential upon Amendment No. 2. The amendments acknowledge the principle of incorporation, as accepted by this place on Second Reading, but propose an entirely different and alternative means of implementation. The amendments are wholly supportive of the steadfast opposition to the Bill, as it stands, shared by many Members on all sides of the Committee and admirably expressed in the detailed exposition of my noble friend Lady Blatch on Second Reading (Hansard, cols. 1163–1170).
With the consent of the Committee, to save time and for clarification, and for the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I may try to clear the yard arm of the cat's cradle of the amendments to Clause 1. It is understood that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, does not propose to move Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 which were tabled before Amendments Nos. 2 and 13 were tabled and that the noble Lord proposes to support my amendments instead of his own.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 are subsumed by subsection (2) (a) of Amendment No. 2, but leave in place in Clause 1(2), lines 13 to 15, which Amendment No. 2 deletes. Amendment No. 2 substitutes subsection
764
(2) (a), which is subsumed, and subsections (2) (b) and (3), which are not subsumed by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are wholly compatible with Amendments Nos. 2 and 13. I hope that we can now get down to substance, having clarified the cat's cradle. I shall be brief. The Committee is much more interested in the noble Lord's contribution to the debate than in my introduction. It is accepted that there should be a domestic forum. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said on Second Reading, if we cannot go along with the whole Bill, an amendment such as my Amendment No. 2 would set aright:
"a ludicrous Mad-Hatter's tea party position".—[Official Report, 25/1/95; col. 1149.]
It would be largely effective to avoid the expense and delay of having to exhaust all domestic appellate procedures before taking a case to the Commission or to the European Court of Human Rights. It will tend to alleviate the burden upon the Government of lost cases before that court. It would most assuredly meet the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as he expressed them on Second Reading. I am glad to see him in his place.
There is also reason to hope—one can never put anything higher than that when introducing a Bill or an amendment—that the amendment, on objective examination, may commend itself to Members of the Committee who supported the Bill as it stood on Second Reading, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who spoke also for the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whom I think I am relieved—I shall wait and see what he has to say—to see in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is also in his place (which is fortunate) who on behalf of himself and the Labour Party gave warm but, to be fair to the noble Lord, qualified support subject to further scrutiny of the Bill.
In short form—the Committee does not want a long speech —the objections to Clause 1 as it stands are that the Bill derogates from the sovereignty of Parliament. The judiciary would have power to override the legislature; to set aside Acts of Parliament. Parliament would retain no residual power to override the convention, even in exceptional circumstances. In that context, the separation of powers under our unwritten constitution, and safeguarded only by our unwritten constitution, would no longer exist.
The United Kingdom—this point has not yet been taken in discussion—is the only signatory state to the convention which does not have a written constitution. If other states such as Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, France and Sweden have incorporated the convention into domestic law, so be it. Incorporation has failed to afford any effective assurance of remedial action for breach as compared with the excellent record of the United Kingdom in that regard.
There are 89 cases awaiting resolution, of which only three arise in the United Kingdom, two of which relate to judgments. Those figures are as recent as October 1994. Problems of non-compliance with the convention in the United Kingdom could be resolved satisfactorily

765
by a domestic forum, as proposed by the amendment, which introduces no constitutional innovation which derogates from the sovereignty of our Parliament.
As to the amendments, a distinction is drawn between our two sources of law which is not readily intelligible to countries which operate a type of Napoleonic code; first, there are laws made by Parliament or under the authority of Parliament (subsection (2) (a)). Secondly, our judge-made law, in equity and at common law, is dealt with in subsection (2) (b) of the amendment. As regards the laws made by Parliament, under this amendment the judiciary would be enjoined to have regard to the provisions of the convention to serve as an aid to primary and secondary legislation so as to ensure whenever possible that the provisions of the convention are not infringed.
I made a submission to such effect some years ago when opposing the Bill brought forward by Lord Broxbourne. I was reminded of that when I read the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, on Second Reading on 25th January 1995, col. 1149 of the Official Report. I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord for jogging my memory.
As regards judge-made law, the judiciary when applying or extending aspects of equity or the common law would be enjoined to do so in conformity with the provisions of the convention. As regards both types and sources of law, the judiciary would be enjoined to have regard to the jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court of Human Rights. Implementing procedures would be introduced, which is subsection (3) of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that, if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 inclusive.
8 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am not learned!
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I humbly apologise to the noble Lord. When I spoke on Second Reading I said that my aim would be to table amendments to improve the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in order to bring it more into line with the human rights Bill introduced in the other place by the honourable Member for Nottingham North. It is not easy for a layman such as myself to draft amendments. I looked at the wide range of previous debates which were mentioned by the noble Lord when he introduced this Bill on Second Reading. I noted that few of the speakers were laymen. I give notice to the Committee that by the time we reach the Report stage I hope to have prepared more amendments relating to information and accountability.
I owe the Committee an explanation as to why I have changed my mind and am happy to jettison some of my amendments and to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Two things happened which
766
caused me to change my mind. The first was a report in the Daily Telegraph of 10th February on a decision by the European Court of Human Rights. It decided that Britain had acted unlawfully in trying to confiscate the profits of a crime committed by a drug peddler, a convicted drug trafficker. It states:
"Nine judges at the Strasbourg court ruled unanimously that a British court acted unlawfully in trying to confiscate £59,000 of Peter Welch's drug profits after he was convicted of a plot to smuggle £4 million of cannabis".
Adding insult to injury, it continued:
"Britain has also been ordered to pay £14,000 costs and expenses to Welch".
If we are to carry the nation with us it is necessary that decisions can be explained to the general public of this country. Frankly, it is virtually impossible to try to explain to people in the street that decision of the European Court.
That gave me cause for thought. I turn to the second incident. As the Committee will know, I believe that a great deal of the pressure has been motivated by Charter 88. I read a publication by that body which was published in January 1990. The first part deals with its priorities and objectives. After a section on the long-term objectives the medium-term objectives are set out. Under the heading "External", it states:
"To see enacted into law at least one, if not all of the Charter's priorities, namely: Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, electoral reform, a Scottish Assembly, a Freedom of Information Act".
After browsing through the document I saw a photograph printed at the back. It shows Anthony Lester QC holding a placard listing the Charter's demands. The Houses of Parliament are in the background. Glancing down the list I notice a Bill of Rights and Freedom of Information. I understand that the noble Lord was not entirely free with information today, but that is another matter. The list also includes a reformed House of Commons and a democratic Upper House. Of course, he choked back his principles because in 1993 he was elevated to your Lordships' House. I suppose that he managed to swallow his scruples and certainly did not go through the agony involved in his 20 years pondering about whether to stay a member of the Garrick Club.
In winding up the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he held no brief for Charter 88. Referring to me he said:
"The noble Lord made it sound like a communist organisation of the most insidious kind. He spoke as though he was Senator Joe McCarthy".—[Official Report, 25/1/95: col. 1170.]
Given the build-up of such a reputation, one feels that one must maintain it. Therefore, I must say that I regard the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in this House as those of a Trojan Horse for Charter 88. I do not say that it is a communist conspiracy by Charter 88; I say that it is a conspiracy by a number of academics and intellectual elitists, or rather, I do not. say that it is a conspiracy; I say that there is a plan in which sections of the media are colluding.
Members of the Committee will have noticed that last night's Evening Standard contained a substantial article by the noble Lord about his Bill today. It was no coincidence that on the Saturday after Second Reading The Times published an opinion poll about the public's

767
attitude towards human rights. I could give other examples but I do not wish to weary the Committee at this time of night.
I am anxious to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, because he retains some sovereignty for our Parliament. We must carry people with us on these issues because there is a great deal of talk within my party regarding Sidney and Beatrice Webb. They are being written off as theoreticians because of their construction of parts of the Labour Party constitution. In fact, they were Fabians, and the Fabians were known as gas and water socialists. They were so named because they knew that, if people did not have heating and lighting in their homes and water which they could drink without fear of cholera, typhoid and so forth, there was no point in talking about anything else. They are the basic elements. We must make sure that people understand that we are concerned mainly about the conditions in which they live and that these other issues are more for the intellectuals and academics.
I was heartened by the Second Reading speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He was not in a minority of one because he made comments with which I found a great resonance. I do not believe that a written constitution provides any guarantee. The Weimar Republic had a written constitution but that did not prevent the rise of Hitler. That constitution contained a clause about religious freedoms and freedom from persecution. We have recently witnessed the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and there is a hollow ring in the belief that the written constitution gave any protection whatever. We should start a campaign to stop knocking this country. Some of those in Europe who seem to be so critical of us should bear in mind that had we not stood on our own in 1940 and had we not resisted and held out, all those countries which now seem to think that we are so backward as regards ordinary, decent civilities and rights would still be living under one of the worst tyrannies that the world has ever known. I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Earl Russell: I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to hear that I am not going to answer that speech. However, I wish to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. He said that he believes that the Bill threatens parliamentary sovereignty. I do not understand how that can possibly be so. I have always understood that the two key principles of parliamentary sovereignty are that a parliament can do what it likes but may not bind its successors. I cannot see anything in the Bill which remotely purports to bind our successors. Therefore, if this Parliament wishes to pass this legislation, I cannot see how we can possibly infringe our parliamentary sovereignty by doing so. I should have thought that an argument to say that we infringe our parliamentary sovereignty by doing what
768
we like would run more risk of contradicting parliamentary sovereignty than anything in my noble friend's Bill.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: I do not have the command of the broad territory which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, has and I shall confine myself to the very narrow point which, as I understand it, is now common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
As introduced, the Bill would have had the effect that those provisions passed by both Houses of Parliament and receiving Royal Assent which were found to conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights would have had to be struck down by the courts.
There are many different views on the merits or demerits of such a matter but there is no doubt that such a move would have involved a major constitutional shift. When I spoke on Second Reading, I expressed the hope that even if, as I suspected, such a basic proposition was not acceptable, consideration would be given to something more moderate in its scope. To my astonishment, there are now no fewer than two amendments designed to produce roughly the same result.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4—either of them as far as I can see—produce a major shift in what the Bill will achieve. Perhaps I may explain that. There is no longer any question of a judge or a court being able to strike down any Act of Parliament. Whatever its rights and wrongs, the argument about sovereignty is no longer in the picture because the amendments produce an obligation on the courts, in construing Acts of Parliament or administering the common law, to give effect, so far as possible and subject to Parliament's ability to say, "You cannot do it", to the provisions of the European Convention to which we all, as a country, are party and with which we are bound to conform.
I believe that either of the two amendments will produce a most desirable change. When winding up the debate on Second Reading the statement of the law by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accorded broadly with exactly what the amendment is designed to produce; namely, a general provision whereby, in giving effect to the law as passed by Parliament, there should be an approach designed to give effect to Convention obligations.
I am afraid that I have still not unravelled the cat's cradle and I do not know which of the amendments will prevail or how. But the amendments will produce what I suspect is the wish not only of the Members of this place but also of the other place when passing legislation; namely, they are not intended to authorise the Executive or anyone else in this country to do things which conflict with the European Convention. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to see how they would do properly otherwise as we are bound by treaty to enforce that.
This amendment will merely enable the courts of this country, in approaching the powers conferred by Parliament in very wide terms, of necessity, to assume that those powers are limited so as not to authorise infringements of the treaty.

769
I can see no reason why that should not be done. It does not involve impugning the sovereignty of Parliament. It would enable the many cases which arise to be adjudicated upon by English judges in England, albeit at considerable expense, in relation to matters which directly affect the citizens of this country. I would welcome either of the amendments and I hope that I shall be given guidance as to which one to vote for when the time comes. I believe that they both achieve a desirable result.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: It is with some trepidation that I venture to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, particularly because the purport of my intention is to agree with him.
I was not able to be present when your Lordships debated the Second Reading of the Bill. Had I been present, I should have offered the Bill a qualified welcome. That qualification would be in relation to the inclusion of Clause 1(3). Although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may be right that we cannot bind our successors—to my knowledge that has never been resolved—it is perfectly clear that that was the intention of the subsection.
Perhaps I may share my anxieties with the Committee. I have spent a political lifetime with the non-governmental organisations concerned with human rights. They are not all academics and I am not sure that most of them would claim to be intellectuals. People working for those organisations care about what happens to individuals. I have always believed, with them, that a government should observe certain standards in their dealings with their own citizens. I believe that those standards should embody consensus across a region if not, yet, across the whole globe.
We have that. All the citizens of this country now have the rights set out in the convention. The only question is how they are to be enforced. Is it necessary to go to Strasbourg, with all the delay, expense and inconvenience that that entails? Or is it possible for those rights to be enforced in the courts of this country? Clearly that is in the interest of the citizen and I believe that it is in the interests of the Government because we can then decently dispose of our in-house washing without too great a public performance. Therefore, up to that point, I am totally with the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
But we must reflect what we are doing when we designate a principle as a human right and afford it a special protection. First, we withdraw it from the normal political process. In a representative democracy, the usual way to resolve issues is by the political process. They are debated and, if necessary, the people make a decision on those issues at the polls. I do not suggest that the majority is always right. Sometimes majorities are wrong. Sometimes they are prejudiced and sometimes they are cruel. I stand to be corrected by the noble Earl, but I do not believe that history offers us many examples of where an oligarchy, an elite, a group of Platonic philosophers or even lawyers have proved to be more just, fair or right than the majority. Normally, where there is an issue, I believe that it should be resolved by the electors in a representative democracy.
770
Therefore, before we embody a principle as a human right, we have to be very careful that there is a very broad and, probably, a lasting consensus about it.
There may be those who want to challenge it. They will not be able to do so in the courts because the purpose of the Bill is to provide that the courts must apply the principles as we have them. If we prevent them from addressing their arguments to the electorate, we shall have silenced those who may want us to reconsider the received wisdom. There have been occasions when they have been the prophets and the innovators. Often, too, it is those who most need the protection of human rights who most need to challenge the received wisdom of an earlier generation.
I hope that we shall not be too rigid. In view of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, quite clearly he is not proposing to be too rigid. I fully accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said; namely, that we would not normally, in any event, wish to place ourselves in breach of the convention. It will not be very easy to change the convention, even should the time come when it ought to be changed in accordance with the needs of a changing world. We make the situation very much worse if we withdraw too wide an area from the political process.
Principles which become enshrined in human rights may sometimes be no more than the reactions of a particular generation to the political problems of that generation. I do not propose to embark upon that argument now, but I could offer examples where I believe that we may be fettered by the perfectly genuine concerns of our grandfathers who initially drafted the convention.
Human rights jurisprudence is not a petrified body of dogmatics; it must live, breath and respond to changing needs. I believe that what the noble Lord is seeking to do in the Bill is healthy: it is to give the electorate time to think again when such matters are challenged. It is to ensure that the Government direct their mind to the impact on individuals of their proposed legislation. But there is a danger—certainly if the proposed subsection is included —that the very purpose of the Bill will be defeated. In other words, it will not give people time to think again. It will ensure that they cannot do so. For that reason, I welcome the noble Lord's amendment.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, I await and reserve judgment. I shall listen carefully to the debate. I should just like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—if he will forgive me; and he knows the spirit in which I say this—that I suspect that my reasons for wanting to amend the subsection are slightly different from his. That does not matter. I promise to judge it on its merits.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I shall not trespass again into the question of whether I am in a minority of one or whether I am a voice crying in the wilderness, though crying my own cries as opposed to those of other people. I should like to take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he said that the Bill as originally drafted did not infringe the sovereignty of

771
Parliament. I accept what the noble Earl said in the sense that he said it. In a sense, it would always be open to this Parliament—or, I suppose a future Parliament—to repeal the Act. However, in terms of real property, while Parliament retained the freehold, it is quite clear that, as long as the legislation in its original form remained on the statute book, if it ever got there, a leasehold interest was being given to others. I personally regard that as an infringement of sovereignty.
Accordingly, I very much welcome the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as far as it goes. However, the difficulty is that the convention was drafted in 1950 or thereabouts. As I understand it from such reading as I have been able to carry out, it was intended to put up a series of markers or beacons to point out to those countries which were still totalitarian in their systems of government what were the basic tenets of democracies. Necessarily, therefore, they were expressed in very general terms. Again, I can understand that the United Kingdom was prepared to support a convention which had within it a machinery which would enable the signatories to say to Ruritania, "Look, you are not conforming with the principles of democracy. In some respects, perhaps in many respects, you remain a totalitarian regime". I can understand the need in that context for a commission and a court of human rights.
However, the problem which now arises is that the European Court of Human Rights and the commission seem to be approaching the convention on the footing not that it lays down broad principles, not that it shows in general terms what are the indicia of a democratic system of government, but that it is something in the nature of an international statute, which, when construed, will lay down precise rules which must be observed if we are to claim, first, to be honouring the convention and, secondly—and, perhaps, more broadly and more importantly—to be a democratic nation. I cannot accept that.
I would be quite happy if the convention were incorporated into United Kingdom law to be taken into account when construing statutes. I would have a little more difficulty —but not all that much—with the concept of somehow grafting it on to the common law. That would probably follow automatically if it were incorporated into English law. However, I would regard it as essential that we should be able to develop the meaning of the convention in an English context in our own way. I would not expect the French to develop and apply the convention in the same way in their own country; or, indeed, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Norwegians or anyone else. They have different cultures and different historical backgrounds. No doubt their approach would be the same in broad principle, but in detail it might well be different, and properly so.
My difficulty with the amendment all along has been the words,
"so that effect may be given to them"—
that is, the convention—
"in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom in accordance with the principles established by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights".
772
That is what sticks in my gullet. I do not believe that that was ever the intention of the founding fathers of the convention. However, it is useless for me to propose any amendments here because, at this stage, that would involve a breach of the treaty by the United Kingdom. All I can do is to express the minority hope—I am sure—that Her Majesty's Government will in due course, having explained the point with care to our partners in the convention, withdraw from the convention, re-enacting it in English law while explaining that we support it completely but we must be allowed to apply it into our own nation in our own way, in our own context and in the light of our own history. As pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, we must let the people have a say and not 27 judges in Strasbourg, only one of whom is English.
Lord Woolf: I hesitate to add to the learning which has already been displayed on the subject by many noble Lords. However, I do so for two reasons. First, I believe that it is most important for us to appreciate the nature and effect of the proposed amendments. As I see it, both the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and that tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, achieve the same result. There is indeed a difficulty in making the selection as to which is preferable. That is a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
Secondly, the advantage of these amendments is that they retain the freehold of parliamentary sovereignty, albeit all that would have been dispensed with otherwise would have been the leasehold, as indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. But that is, as he indicated, an important distinction. I welcome these amendments because they avoid the consequences which follow from Parliament inadvertently infringing the Convention on Human Rights where there was no intention to do so because, as often happens with legislation, the exact consequences of that legislation are not foreseen.
The result of having these amendments is that Parliament will retain the right to make it clear that in respect of specific legislation it intends that legislation to prevail over the convention. If it does not do so, when it comes to the courts to construe that legislation, as the amendments make clear, it is the courts' task to try to construe that legislation so far as possible consistently with the convention. It seems to me that that is a happy result. It complies with our treaty obligations and it follows a precedent which has been taken in other parts of the world, in particular in New Zealand and at one stage in Canada, where the very same device was used, not surprisingly in countries which had a similar constitutional tradition to our own.
I therefore have no hesitation in supporting both amendments. When it comes to choosing between the amendments I will merely say this. It seems to me that the solution devised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is the one to be preferred because it makes most clear the task of the courts when it comes to construing enactments whenever passed in the light of the convention. It also has the advantage that it is shorter, and that is always something to be desired in a situation of this sort. I merely add this, that whereas the noble

773
and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice did not have the opportunity of considering the precise language of these two amendments when he spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill he expressed two reservations. One of the reservations is met by either of these amendments and he has authorised me to say on this occasion that he would endorse the spirit of these amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the illumination which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Woolf, have shed upon this. I have not myself seen a perfect alternative as between Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I still, respectfully, am of the view that they are not perfect alternatives. If they were to be alternatives, I for my part would strongly, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, support Amendment No. 4 rather than Amendment No. 2.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, who has given his explanation as to why he will withdraw his own amendments. At the outset I refer to the Welch judgment, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. The Government are considering carefully the implications of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Peter Welch. The Welch case turned on the narrow point of whether a confiscation order under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 was a penalty and could not therefore be applied where offences were committed before the Act came into force.
I can assure the Committee that the Government had no intention of creating a retrospective penalty. It may be tempting to say with hindsight that the outcome of the case was obvious but we certainly cannot say with any certainty that the domestic courts would have found for Mr. Welch in this case if they had been able to apply the convention.
It is interesting to note that the European Commission on Human Rights was evenly divided on the issue of whether a confiscation order was indeed a penalty. Had the domestic courts found against Mr. Welch, he would of course in any event have been able to take his case to the Strasbourg courts.
I believe the amendments betoken a recognition of the force of the Government's arguments in respect of the effects of incorporation upon the carefully balanced relationship between Parliament and the courts which lies at the heart of our tradition of parliamentary supremacy. But these amendments, although preferable in many respects to the original proposals in this Bill, do not allay the Government's anxieties on this point.
The Government's concern is that, in construing parliamentary enactments, the courts should look at the words of those enactments first, and only in the case of ambiguity should they look to see which of the possible meanings is consistent with the UK's international
774
obligations. The amendments to Clause 1 under discussion would each (albeit in slightly different ways) increase the number of occasions in which the courts would be entitled, and indeed obliged, to look at the convention before deciding how the words of an enactment should be interpreted, even if those words are clear and unambiguous. In the Government's view, where the words of Parliament are clear, they should be given effect to by our courts.
As far as subordinate legislation is concerned—a matter to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, paid particular attention at Second Reading—the courts already give the most careful scrutiny to whether such delegated legislation is within the powers given by an Act of Parliament. They can, and indeed do, strike it down if it goes beyond what Parliament intended. Should the courts be permitted to go further than this and strike down subordinate legislation because, in their view, it offends against the principles of the convention even though it is within the powers given by Parliament and even though it has in all probability been approved by Parliament under either the negative or affirmative resolution procedure? In the Government's view, the courts should not have such powers.
There is a further danger in interpreting domestic legislation, old or new, by reference to the convention. The interpretation of the rights and freedoms set out in the convention and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the commission is by its nature an evolving process. It is well recognised, not least by the Strasbourg court, that the interpretation of the convention will alter over time as social and political attitudes change. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, made reference to the difficulty of making changes where the social and political attitudes change over time. In the Government's view, it is for Parliament to decide how best to respond to those changes, not for the judges to decide that domestic enactments, whenever passed, must now be interpreted so as to accord with developments in current European social policy.
In short, the Government consider that, even with one or other of these amendments, the Bill would amount to a significant change in the current position in providing for the convention to be litigated in the courts where now it may not be. For the reasons set out in my speech at Second Reading, the Government do not consider that such a change is necessary in order to secure the rights and freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor do we believe that it would enhance the enjoyment of those rights and freedoms in this country.
As I said at col. 1166 of Hansard of 25th January at Second Reading, the arithmetic is interesting when one compares the UK's record with that of those countries which have incorporated the ECHR. We compare favourably with others in that respect. It is true that there is no diminution of the protection of our citizens both as regards the national law and indeed the European

775
Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Government could not possibly support either of these amendments.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, could she confirm that, since Parliament is sovereign, Parliament has the right to pass this Bill if it wishes?
Baroness Blatch: I confirm that absolutely. This Parliament is entirely free to pass this law, as many other countries have incorporated the ECHR into their own national law. It is entirely a matter for this Chamber and another place to do the same.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If no other Member of the Committee wishes to speak—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may explain to the Committee some of the background to these two amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Order! Surely at this stage I should respond. I apologise, we are in Committee.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: As I understand it, it is appropriate for me to speak to the amendment which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and at the same time to indicate how it differs from Amendment No. 4, to which I should also like to speak at this stage.
The Committee will know that the purpose of the Bill, as its title indicates, is to incorporate Section 1 of the European convention into the law of the land—that is the central purpose of the Bill—and to put our courts into the position of being able to give decisions locally with recourse being had to the European Court of Human Rights only in the last resort and not at first recourse.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, dealing with the common law is already covered by the existing Clause 1(1) and (2) of the Bill. I remind the Committee that Clause 1(1) incorporates into the law of the United Kingdom the schedule provisions and gives them full legal effect in accordance with this Act. Clause 1(2) provides that the schedule provisions shall have effect notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary.
Pausing there, the intention—and I hope the effect—of Clause 1 is to ensure that the convention becomes part of the common law and is taken into account. That applies to law and equity.
Clause 1(3) in its unamended form is similar in its object to Section 2(1) and (4) of the European Communities Act 1972. It is a very strong provision. It commands the courts to construe all existing and future legislation in accordance with the convention and to set aside any inconsistent provisions. Therefore, Clause 1(3) in its present form is a lion rather than a mouse. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, indicated, it would have the effect of empowering the
776
courts to strike down or set aside inconsistent legislation, as they already do in the case of statutes which conflict with European Community law.
I listened very carefully to the much more learned and wiser voices at Second Reading. I also listened carefully to the speech in reply made by the noble Baroness the Minister. It seemed to me on reflection that the wise course was to seek the widest possible consensus across the Chamber for the Bill and to remove any conceivable rational objection to the Bill in the form in which it would leave this Chamber. It is for that reason that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and all Members of the Committee who have spoken that it would be right to delete Clause 1(3) and to substitute a weaker provision.
The question then is: what is the most appropriate weaker provision? The gap which Clause 1(3) in its unamended or amended form seeks to fill is the gap created by the decision of the House of Lords in the Brind case. In that case, the House of Lords decided that where broad ministerial powers are conferred by Parliament it would be usurping the role of Parliament if the courts were to interpret those powers subject to and in accordance with the convention rights and freedoms. In effect, the Law Lords decided that only an ambiguity in legislation would authorise judges to apply the convention.
That is the gap which a weaker form of Clause 1(3) seeks to fill. It would authorise the courts to interpret all legislation in accordance with the convention unless the context requires otherwise. It would fill the Brind gap. The gap that would not be filled by the weakening of the Bill would be the gap exposed, for example, by the Welch case concerning the retrospective confiscation of profits from drugs. In that case the problem is that the statute itself requires the courts to exercise their powers in a retrospective way. Therefore, if either of the candidates for amendment is accepted by the Committee it will follow that in the Welch case and similar cases where the statute cannot be read subject to the convention the only remedy will continue to be recourse to the European Commission and the Court of Human Rights.
I believe that we should accept that limitation. We would not achieve perfect incorporation but something less. We would be leaving it to Parliament to pass inconsistent legislation and the only remedy would be a European remedy thereafter.
I come to the question of which of the amendments might better achieve the object which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I and all other Members of the Committee who have spoken except the Minister have in mind; that is, to seek so far as we can to authorise our courts to give effect to the convention locally and make it unnecessary to do so on the international plane.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will forgive me if I say that I do not believe that subsection (3) of his amendment is a necessary part of the amendment. That would follow as a matter of course in any event. I believe that subsection (b) is already

777
covered by the earlier provisions of the Bill as they stand. Paragraph (a) of the amendment is ambiguous. It merely states that the provisions in the Schedule shall:
"serve as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation".
It does not say how. It leaves that utterly ambiguous. As noble Lords who are judicial or legal in their learning will know, the courts already use the convention as an aid to the construction of primary and secondary legislation where there is an ambiguity, but not otherwise. I believe that in Scotland they do not use it as an aid to ambiguity, either. So the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would amend the position in Scotland. I do not believe that by itself it would overrule the decision in Brind or make clearer what the interpretation rules should be.
Amendment No. 4 is based upon what is already to be found in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is expressed more precisely than the New Zealand provision, but it makes clear that the sovereignty of Parliament is preserved in the sense that, where the context does not permit, the courts must give effect to the legislation and not to the convention. In that rather special use of the word "sovereignty" the sovereignty of Parliament is preserved.
However, the effect of Amendment No. 4 is, I hope, to make quite clear that, except where there is a clear inconsistency, the courts will construe existing or future legislation consistently with the rights which we have defined in Schedule 1. Given that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I have exactly the same objectives, as I understand it, I very much hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment in order that we may make common cause on this important part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Blatch: I was about to wind up briefly on that point. If my noble friend wishes to speak before I do so, I give way.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was coming to the decision on what I would do with my amendment. Perhaps my noble friend wishes to speak first.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for pointing out the distinction between the two amendments. That is important, as noble Lords may take a view about which amendment they wish to support.
The difficulties which we envisage in relation to my noble friend's amendment would apply with even more force to the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which place a positive obligation—the noble Lord made that clear—upon the courts to construe legislation consistently with the convention wherever possible. That provision still represents a very significant constitutional change. Therefore the Government could not support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No other Member of the Committee wishes to speak. I am obliged to the
778
Minister. I assure the Committee that at this hour it would usurp the whole concept of the way in which we conduct our affairs to seek to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, by going into the technical case of Brind and others, and heaven knows what. I have not the slightest intention of doing so. The reason is this. It is more or less common ground that there is nothing to choose between the amendments. They virtually achieve the same objective. As my noble friend says, the Government apparently prefer my amendment to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
My amendment removes something that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, does not. I refer to Clause 1(2), which states:
"The provisions set out in Schedule 1 shall have effect notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary".
That provision remains in the Bill under the noble Lord's amendment. Also under his amendment there is no provision whatever for paragraph (b) of my amendment or the rules of court or practice directions procedure.
At this hour on this important subject I propose to take the opinion of the Committee. Some resolution ought to be made. We do not wish to go on arguing as to whether this amendment is better than another amendment. I shall take the opinion of the Committee.
8.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 25.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Palmer, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. [Teller]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Tornington, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Addington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McNair, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Russell, E

Dubs, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Eatwell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Gregson, L.

Tope, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Woolf, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.2 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) So far as the context permits, enactments (whenever passed or made) shall be construed consistently with the rights and freedoms defined in Schedule 1.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, I fear at great length. I therefore beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert:
(""enactment" includes an Order in Council, any Northern Ireland legislation and any instrument made under an Act or any Northern Ireland legislation.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this amendment presents a purely technical definition. It seeks to define the meaning of "enactment" to include,
"an Order in Council, any Northern Ireland legislation and any instrument made under an Act or any Northern Ireland legislation".
I do not think it is a matter of controversy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Remedies for violations of the Convention]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will move that the clause do not stand part of the Bill. In the circumstances, it would be otiose and a waste of time for the Committee were I to move Amendment No. 9. Therefore I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sefton of Garston: I listened with interest to the two debates tonight. In the earlier debate some difference of opinion seemed to arise as to what constitutes Charter 88. I do not know whether it consists of intellectuals or professional men. But I do know one thing: they are so far removed from the ordinary people of this country that Charter 88 will never go down very well.
That brings me to the purpose of my intervention. It is not to debate anything at this moment. It is merely to ask the sponsor of the Bill a question. Clause 4 states:
"For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall be taken to prejudice the right of any person to petition the European Commission of Human Rights claiming to be a victim of a violation of the rights set out in the Convention".
I do not want to argue that point, except to point out that there is nothing in this Bill that would enable an ordinary working-class lay person in this country to go
780
to the appropriate court to defend his right under the convention. The legal system in this country is framed in such a way, and the exorbitant cost of the QCs and other lawyers in this country is so high, that to suggest that working-class folk could have recourse to this subsection means nothing. If we are to break away from this cycle of intellectuals and professionals removing themselves so far from the ordinary people of the country, something has to be done about the cost.
I had it in mind to put down an amendment to this Bill. It is a long time since I first read the convention. I thought then that it was a good thing. When the Bill came up for debate, I read the convention again. I still see it as an excellent thing. I still believe that there is something in it which contradicts the attitude of the Government in certain fields of public relations and public discussion and it should be challenged. I could not afford to have representation—to pay for the solicitors, the banisters and all the other extraneous matters that they bring in. The earlier debate and this one have confirmed that for me.
The only time that I ever became involved in a court case was when somebody made a remark about me that I thought was libellous, and I therefore went to court. In the due process of law, I employed a barrister. The person who had offended me was also a barrister. Believe it or not, the case went on for seven days. I was completely cleared by everybody in the case, including the person who had offended me. Then the court decided to do what it thought necessary to settle the case. My barrister and the opposing barrister went into Chambers. That terrified me. In my absence, without my having to say anything at all, they settled the case. It cost me thousands of pounds. It cost the other party nothing because she had been conducting her own case.
That gave me an important lesson about British law and its availability to ordinary people. The people who are behind Charter 88 ought to keep their feet on the ground. Those who propose the Bill had better not suggest something like, "for the avoidance of doubt you have the right to do this that or the other". I make a proposal that the Minister should consider an amendment before Report stage; namely, that the Bill should empower or compel the Government to set up an organisation or commission (whatever it may be called) that will guarantee to the people of this land the rights and wherewithal to go to the European Court in order to claim their rights under the convention.
If such an amendment is not brought forward, I feel that we would be in a situation similar to that with Charter 88 and talk of sovereignty. Sovereignty over what, I ask? If the sovereignty of Parliament means anything, it means control over our economic affairs. But our economic affairs can no longer be controlled by the Government. We have lost the sovereignty of this country. Intellectuals talk about the preservation of our sovereignty, but nobody has asked whether we still have it. We do not have it. This country has transferred its sovereignty over economic affairs to the board rooms of private companies and PLCs. It is time that we woke up to that fact. Then perhaps, we can translate the principle that we have the ability to control our affairs into this Bill.

781
Unless people are provided with the means to go to the European Court, this Bill means nothing. I ask the Minister to give the matter some consideration. When that has been done, perhaps the Minister would consider bringing forward an amendment to Clause 4 in order to provide the wherewithal for ordinary people to claim their rights under the law.
Lord Woolf: I oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. I suggest that it is an unnecessary and undesirable provision, particularly having regard to the amendments which have been made to earlier parts of the Bill. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was good enough to indicate that he thought that some consideration should be given to the terms of Clause 4 because of its width. It is my suggestion that the best course now is to drop Clause 4 as unnecessary.
Baroness Blatch: The Government too are unhappy about Clause 4, along with one or two other people in this Chamber. While the provisions of Clause 1 lie at the heart of the Government's objections to the Bill, the provisions of Clause 4 also cause considerable concern, particularly in terms of their creation of an automatic right of action for breach of statutory duty, whereby almost any actions by individual Ministers or public servants could be deemed open to challenge, irrespective of the fact that the provisions of the convention were intended to be binding upon governments and not upon individuals.
The Government retain very strong concerns about the provisions in Clause 4 and could not support the inclusion of the clause, although we shall not oppose it on this occasion.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I hope that Mr. Tony Blair has the same ease in dropping Clause 4 from the constitution of his party as this Chamber has in persuading noble Lords to drop this Clause 4.
Perhaps I may briefly say something about the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. Oddly enough, I have great sympathy with much of what he said. I have little sympathy with his attack on Charter 88. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Searman, who chairs Charter 88, will be surprised to know that he is leading an out of touch body of that kind. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that a MORI poll, with which I and my colleagues had nothing whatever to do, was published in The Times a couple of weeks ago. It showed that the only measure of constitutional reform that has real popularity across the country is incorporation of the convention; 73 per cent. of the people want it. I do not know their class and I am not interested; but more than seven out of 10 want a Bill of this kind. It is therefore not some kind of ivory tower, intellectual, elitist, professorial measure. It is something that people want.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that access to justice is extremely important, and if this were a government Bill and any government were crazy enough to ask me to be a member of it, for my part I should like to see a human rights commission in the Bill, able to take up cases of merit and fund them. I should like to see legal aid targeted in that way so that people of
782
limited means could have their cases taken up. I should like to see a director of civil proceedings able to take on public interest cases.
But this is a Private Member's Bill and, as the Committee is aware, there are inhibitions on what can be done. Even if it were not a Private Member's Bill, there are still limitations as to what can be done in relation to finance in a measure of this kind.
As I say, I have sympathy with the need to ensure access to justice, not only here but also in Strasbourg. However, that is not possible in the Bill. I can reassure the noble Lord that many working class people—they may not be people of whom the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, would approve—found remedies under the convention. For example, prisoners of various kinds; people seeking legal aid in Scotland who are denied it; a battered wife unable to obtain legal aid for a judicial separation in Ireland; a working-class man in Liverpool unable to obtain records about himself from Liverpool City Council. It is therefore not true that it is a charter for the rich, though I agree that at the moment the rich are more likely to be able to take advantage of it.
The problem with Clause 4 is that it purports to create a general constitutional tort. I recognise that the circumstances in which a Minister or public officer should be liable in tort will vary tremendously from case to case. In some cases one needs a mental element—misfeasance in public office; in some cases no mental element is present —an unlawful search and seizure, a trespass. The great defect in Clause 4 is that it fails to specify with enough particularity the circumstances in which public officers will be liable. I am comforted by the fact that by incorporating Article 13 of the convention into the law of the land, we shall be incorporating a requirement for the courts to fashion effective domestic remedies for violations of the convention. Speaking for myself I am content to leave it to the courts, using their discretionary powers in fashioning relief in judicial review cases, to fashion on a case by case basis appropriate discretionary remedies to give effect to Article 13. For those reasons I support everything which has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in regard to the objections to Clause 4.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will consider at a later stage whether there should still be a reference to the right of individual petition, which should not be entirely lost sight of.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The United Kingdom is committed on the international plane to ensuring the right of individual petition for everyone within its jurisdiction. I am glad to say that the Government recently ratified Protocol 11 to the convention, which will create a permanent right of access to a permanent court of human rights. That is one of the great steps forward that the Government have taken in the European protection of human rights. Now that we have ratified Protocol 11, which I anticipate will come into force within the next two years, it will no longer be possible for a future Parliament to take away that precious right

783
unless it delegates from the convention itself. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, will forgive me for saying so, that is something that no member state of the Council of Europe—none of the 34 from Turkey to Ireland —would wish to do. Indeed, they are queuing up to join.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can say that from my own experience there is a great misconception among many people who believe that unless we have incorporation of the ECHR, somehow or other they do not enjoy its protection. I am not absolutely certain, nor am I convinced, that that point was properly understood when people on market squares and streets throughout the country were posed the question whether they agreed it was a good thing. Does not the noble Lord agree with me that the incorporation of the convention does not increase the protection of United Kingdom citizens; nor does it guarantee fewer referrals to the ECHR; nor does it minimise the cost and nor does it minimise waste of time or effort, as evidenced by the record of the countries where the ECHR has been incorporated in their law.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Bill transfers power and influence from Parliament to the judiciary, in all its forms, making sometimes good decisions, sometimes bad decisions and sometimes decisions of indifference.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Minister asked a number of questions which I should like to answer briefly. First, on the issue of the transfer of power, the Bill transfers sovereignty back from Strasbourg to Westminster. By that, I mean that in 1966 when the Government allowed the right of petition and accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court over Parliament, as they did, they transferred sovereignty to Strasbourg. This Bill transfers sovereignty back to Parliament to enact a Bill to empower our judges on limited terms to provide local remedies. That is an affirmation of parliamentary sovereignty, not a denial of it. The Bill also gives effect to subsidiarity. It places our local institutions in the first line.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked whether the Bill would improve the effective protection of human rights in this country. The answer is that it would, for this reason. It would mean that, where Ministers are given
784
broad powers in a parliament dominated by the Executive and they then violate the convention by disregarding its provisions in the exercise of those powers, the citizen will be able to get a speedy and effective local remedy. Advocates like me will no longer eat in Strasbourg and drink the delicious Alsatian wine, going to the European Court, because our clients will be able to get speedy, effective local remedies from British judges.
Therefore, I believe that this strengthens the protection. I have little doubt that ordinary men and women in this country are quite astonished that a modest mouse of a Bill —which is what it has become—can still be a Bill which the Government feel unable to support.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The discussion goes far wide of Clause 4 and we are wasting time on incorporation. My noble friend Lady Blatch is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is, in my view, absolutely wrong for the reasons that I have already given. We are talking about Clause 4 and not Alsatian wine.
Clause 4 negatived.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (as amended by the Third, Fifth and Eighth Protocols).]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 11:
page 3, line 3, at beginning insert ("SECTION 1 OF").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these technical amendments and have nothing to add. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, leave out line 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.