Lords Sitting of 29 January 1997

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

Deafblind People: Communicator Guide Schemes
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people in the United Kingdom are both deaf and blind, and how many of them have communication guides.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, since there is no universally accepted definition of deafblindness, it is not possible to give an accurate figure of the number of deafblind people. The numbers of communicator guides for people who are both deaf and blind will depend upon the local authority's assessment of overall needs.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have been told of the Government's actions in this field? I refer to launching the good practice guide last year, funding the voluntary associations and the work of local authorities in setting up schemes. However, those actions are hopelessly inadequate. Some deafblind people are still quite isolated. Only 16 out of 400 local authorities have set up the schemes. That is a disgraceful neglect by many local authorities.
Will the Government press all local authorities with deafblind people in their areas to set up one of the essential communicator guide schemes? Will they ask local authorities to identify all the deafblind people in their area and to set up a form of record? We do not know how many deafblind people there are, where they are, or what problems they have. That is not good enough. Will the Government press local authorities to assess needs and to make adequate provision to add some quality to the lives of deafblind people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with much of what the noble Lord says. However, as regards resources for social services, local authorities are receiving a 4.5 per cent. increase in cash for next year. They are receiving extra money for community care. New money will amount to £325 million. It will be the third year running that that money will be ring-fenced so that it has to be spent on community care.
It is for local authorities to set their priorities. We do not do that for them. But we expect them to provide appropriate care and support for the most vulnerable and disabled people in their communities and for their carers.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does the Minister accept that not only are the schemes greatly valued by the people who use them, but they can also be very cost effective in preventing the need for residential or nursing home care, in particular for elderly people suffering from that dual disability? Will the noble Baroness consider positively encouraging local authorities to implement the schemes and to disseminate good practice in this area?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have a number of programmes which encourage local authorities to have greater awareness of those people who have dual disabilities of, I think that we would all agree, an horrendous nature. We work closely with the directors of social services. There are some programmes to raise awareness of the needs of this group of people. But in the end it is for local authorities to decide whether an investment in one area is cost effective in saving money in another. We have to rely on their local discretion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, local authorities being what they are, irrespective of their political persuasion, does the Minister appreciate that we shall have an unbalanced service? Some people in some areas may be well looked after, and some ignored, depending on the priorities of the local authority. Can the Government cut across that imbalance by deciding on a specific subsidy made available to local authorities for this purpose only and for no other? I believe that were such a system introduced assistance would reach most quickly the areas of greatest need.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord having been a councillor, as I was for many years, will know how jealously local authority members guard their autonomy and their rights in setting local priorities. We recognise that there are parts of the country where needs are very different from other parts. Therefore as far as possible we have been going away from setting quotas or rigid policies, leaving it to the local authorities to spend the money as they think fit.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is it not rather odd that we do not know how many people are both deaf and blind? Will the Minister's department undertake some form of research programme to find out what the numbers are?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is very difficult; the degree of disability varies according to the person. Therefore we have not set a rigid definition. Clearly it is up to local authorities to know the needs of their populations. We encourage them to keep local registers where they think it appropriate.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that local authorities could provide her with a definition without any problem at all? That is no difficulty. Is not the situation very odd? The Minister assures the House that more money is forthcoming and says that it is a matter for the local authorities, and yet

1131
hundreds of deafblind people are isolated and not being helped. We cannot fob the problem off on the local authorities, many of whom are negligent. The Government can speak of autonomy, but they can influence the local authorities. If the Minister so chooses she can intervene and persuade local authorities. The Government do that in relation to other matters. Why cannot they do it in relation to deafblind people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we fight shy of doing that in relation to other matters. The noble Lord will recognise that there are many, many demands on local authorities. We acknowledge that, and that is why we have given them increased cash for this coming year. It is really not up to central government to set local priorities; it does not work—I know; I have been on the other end. Such an approach merely gets caught up in red tape. It is inappropriate. It is quite right that local authorities should judge priorities in their own areas.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, what guidelines are there to encourage local authorities which co-ordinate their communication guides to share the information with local authorities which do not use them? Does the Minister agree that at least some elderly deafblind people could benefit from conductor guides and other support services to retain their independence and perhaps live in their own homes?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are working with voluntary organisations and also the Association of Directors of Social Services to ensure that local authorities are much more aware of that group of people. There is evidence that the profile of that group is being raised. We will also put out a circular on the registration of deaf and partially hearing people in the next couple of months. We hope that that will also encourage local authorities to become more aware of the needs of this particular group of people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I was leader of a London local authority we saw to it that, in addition to our councillors and aldermen, representatives of deafblind people attended our council meetings so that, before the meetings took place, we could ensure that the points they wished to raise became its subject-matter and subsequently the policy of the local authority?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to local authorities to run their meetings as they choose. I hope that they do work with voluntary organisations. Clearly those organisations have a lot of knowledge and wisdom to give.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, might it be possible for the Government to make use of the local authority associations to circulate information about best practice among their members? It is a less direct way of influencing them than the interference which she rightly fears.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, in November 1995 we set out good practice guidelines in consultation
1132
with local authorities and the voluntary organisations relevant to this particular sector. The document was entitled, Think Dual Sensory. I gather that it had something of an impact.

Golf Courses: VAT Liability
2.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to remove the inconsistency in the law whereby VAT is payable on green fees on public but not on private golf courses.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, green fees payable by visitors to both private and public golf courses are liable to VAT.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very precise Answer. However, is he aware that it is not the sort of answer I expected? I thought he would tell the House, because of the way in which the Government emphasise the use of playing fields and sporting facilities, that he was encouraging the establishment of like schemes for all the golfing fraternity. That is not the case. If a youngster needs encouragement to play golf and goes to a municipal golf course, he is charged VAT; if he becomes a member of a club he is not charged VAT. There is a difficulty. In view of the consultative document that was circulated, will the Minister re-examine the matter and look more favourably on those who actively take part in sport, in line with government policy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am pleased that I surprised the noble Lord with my Answer. I think that his problem arises from the subscriptions paid to clubs where there is indeed a difference. Local authority courses pay VAT; indeed, I understand they are content with that situation. Non-profit-making golf courses pay no VAT; profit-making commercial courses pay VAT. I confirm that the position regarding VAT on sport, as the noble Lord rightly said, is the subject of a public consultation exercise which finished at the end of the year as part of a deregulatory review of VAT law on exemptions for sport. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of three golf clubs and a resident of St. Andrews. Golf is the only industry in that town. While there are anomalies, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, that represents no impediment to those who want to play golf. Last year, in Scotland alone, 9.8 million rounds of golf were played, 22 per cent. of them by visitors. The Links Trust of St. Andrews, which has responsibility for the most famous golf courses in the world, took over £2 million in green fees and charged no VAT whatever on visiting players, whose contributions represented 85 per cent. of green fees paid.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first, on behalf of the Treasury, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for his contribution to the VAT income from the three golf courses of which he is a member. I also congratulate him on the amount of golf he plays and the famous course on which he is privileged to do so. The position on a course like St. Andrews is, I presume, that it counts as a non-profit-making course and therefore its subscriptions are not liable to VAT. I am not entirely sure why the green fees charged to visitors are not liable to VAT. Perhaps the noble Lord ought not to have raised the point in case some friendly VAT-man reads these proceedings. However, I am pleased to hear that nearly 10 million rounds of golf were played in Scotland last year. I put in a plug for it as a country with excellent golf courses.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is highly unfair to the town of St. Andrews? Its major industry is the University of St. Andrews of which I have the pleasure of being an honorary professor. To revert to the supplementary question, does the Minister further agree that for young people more active team games should be encouraged rather than a game which is more suited to people of the noble Lord's age?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspected that someone connected with the University of St. Andrews would take exception to the description by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, of golf being the only industry in St. Andrews. I am not sure that "industry" is quite the right word. There are two famous undertakings in the town. One is golf, the other is the university.
As regards encouraging young people to take up golf, I do not normally answer questions about sport as I am not the most sporting person in your Lordships' House. However, it is good for young people to take up any kind of sport because it gives them a meaningful activity, something to do in their spare time. The great advantage of golf is that if you take it up young, you can carry it on into old age. I suspect that if I took up golf now I would not be good at it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I do not play golf and have no interest in it, but I have an interest in good local government and the provision of facilities for the local community. Could the VAT regulations be reinterpreted so that everyone living in a local authority area was considered to be a member of the municipal golf club? If the golf course were run as part of the leisure services department rather than as a trading enterprise by the local authority, it would not be a profitable organisation and therefore would not be liable for VAT.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that many local authorities would be attracted by that proposition, if they are telling the truth. They keep saying that they are pressed for money. Clearly, to give everyone free golf would be a considerable additional expense and I doubt whether they would wish to
1134
undertake it. As regards VAT, the reason local authorities are content with the present arrangements is that if they were not registered for VAT they would not be able to recover it on the purchases they make relating to their sporting interests.
The Duke of Roxburghe: My Lords, I need to declare an interest. I own a golf course, so perhaps my interest is rather more intense. In light of the recent consultation paper on VAT and sport, can the Minister say whether the Government will consider any changes to level the playing field between the members' courses, the members' clubs and the proprietary clubs? Perhaps I may widen the question: will the Government consider extending the exemption to other sporting activities besides golf?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wondered how soon we would arrive at level playing fields and the like. My noble friend is right to point out that commercial golf clubs are liable for VAT on their subscriptions as well as, like the others, on their green fees. That is part of the review. It seems highly unlikely that visitors' green fees charged by any one of the three categories will be excused VAT; they are more likely to remain liable to it. There is a difference between non-profit-making organisations. At the risk of bringing other noble Lords to their feet, one of the issues involved is the EC sixth VAT directive which requires exemption of certain services supplied by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport. That is another part of this complex problem.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn surprised me too? That is because the Minister appeared to be making a statement contrary to government policy as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is he aware that in the Budget speech of 1993 the Chancellor said that he had never disguised a personal view that the coverage of value added tax in this country was too narrow? Offered the opportunity to extend value added tax, the noble Lord turns it down. Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that coverage is too narrow? To what goods and services would he like to extend VAT?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not a golfer. That shot is not just into the rough; it is out of bounds as regards the Question. If he wants a discussion about the wider issues I suggest he puts down a Question.

Rail Privatisation: Benefits
2.56 p.m.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether rail privatisation has resulted in better services for passengers and greater network capacity in west London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, yes. In west London the franchising of passenger rail services is bringing about sustained improvements in services and will continue to do so. The flotation of Railtrack has provided an impetus to develop strategies for greater network capacity.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a resident living next-door to the west London line, but the comments I am about to make apply more widely throughout the country. First, will the Minister accept my sincere congratulations on allocating £1.3 million for the construction of three stations on that line? But does he share my concern that Railtrack has said that it cannot operate trains at the stations because there is no longer any capacity?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, I can accept the noble Lord's congratulations with hardly any trouble. Secondly, he referred to Railtrack and capacity issues. I understand that Railtrack is considering how to improve the capacity of the west London line, and it would be very much in its interests so to do.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his Answer to my noble friend, the Minister brought in the subject of the privatisation of the buses. Is he aware that a report was published today on the privatisation of the bus companies which stated that, with the splitting up of bus services, the whole situation is in a mess and the change should never have been carried through in this way? No one has responsibility for co-ordination any longer.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question concerned rail privatisation in west London. However, as we have a little time, yes, the Government will study the report carefully.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the suggested location of the stations as preferred by developers, at this stage grouped closely together at the southern end of the route, seldom more than 200 yards apart, would cause a considerable operational obstruction and require much greater headway than is currently provided?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is for the parties concerned—among them the franchisee and Railtrack—to decide such issues as where the stations should most appropriately be put—where they would be of most use and generate the most traffic.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the benefit of the provision of £1.3 million, which could have been used for the two or three stations on this line, is being frustrated by Railtrack? It has stated that there is no capacity on the lines to allow trains to stop at these stations, so their construction is unlikely to go ahead, even though the finance is available. When will the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Transport get tough with Railtrack?
1136
Railtrack has already been condemned recently on two occasions by the regulator. Why does not the Minister support the regulator, whom he put in place?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course we support the regulator. But, as I said, Railtrack is looking at how it might improve the capacity of this line. It is in its commercial interest to see more trains travelling on this line and on many other lines. It has announced extremely bold investment plans and spent considerable sums on upgrading the railway network in this country.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, can the Minister explain why over the past 20 or 30 years no attempt has been made to provide this much needed capacity?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is an interesting question. It is only now, with access to private sources of capital, that this sort of work can be taken forward. Railtrack, with its new and innovative approach to the issue, has announced bold investment plans for the network. We are seeing real changes, not only in the quality and levels of service provided by the franchisees but also in the amount of money being invested in the network.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to accept that the Government have a responsibility to put pressure on Railtrack so that a solution can be found within the timescale that has been allowed in the package; or is it the case that the Government have cynically put forward the offer of money and are not prepared to press for the money to be spent on the purpose intended?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Baroness would not expect me to agree that the Government acted cynically. They never have and never will. The money was put forward as part of the TPP support, and that is a positive sign. It is for the parties involved to get together and come up with plans as to how the projects can be taken forward. I say again that it is in Railtrack's interest to see more trains travelling. It will generate more revenue for itself that way.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister said that Railtrack has come up with bold and innovative investment plans. Can he explain why the regulator severely criticised Railtrack for spending only three-quarters of what it should have spent in its current budget?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I recall a Question on that specific issue only a few weeks ago, in which I believe the noble Lord intervened, though I cannot be sure. Over £100 million more has been spent in the first six months of this financial year on infrastructure investment than was spent in the same period last year. That is a considerable sum. Railtrack accepts that it needs to work harder on meeting its investment targets, and we look forward to seeing its network statement on how it intends to do that.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I fervently believe in the privatisation of many things, particularly British Rail. But is my noble friend able to agree with me that privatisation does not remove from government the responsibility of seeing that this country has a good transport system, particularly taking account of the interface with their concern for the environment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have considerable concern for the environment. That is why we put in place the structures and the framework with the privatised rail industry to allow that industry, for the first time since the war, to develop, to generate new traffic and to carry new quantities of freight.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply, will he now answer the first part of my earlier question? Are the Government prepared to urge Railtrack to find a speedy solution so that the money can be spent?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I give the noble Baroness the same answer as I gave her the first time. It is for the parties involved to come up with relevant plans for these exciting new developments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is unfortunate that Motorail has been abolished? It helped to keep some cars off the road for some of the time.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have discussed Motorail, services to Scotland and so forth on many previous occasions. The Question concerns rail services in west London, where Motorail is little used at present.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, can the Minister say when the £1.3 million will be withdrawn if the stations are not built? Is there a deadline?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my understanding is that the £1.3 million is to be spent on feasibility studies. The noble Lord's question therefore is not valid.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rail privatisation presents an excellent opportunity for service improvement as envisaged by the positive plans of the emerging train operating companies?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, not only are there encouraging plans but there have been encouraging developments as well. It is well recognised that the franchises that have been put in place will not only save the Government enormous sums of money but also result in more and better services and considerably reduced levels of complaint. Noble Lords may be interested to know that the latest figures on passenger complaints published by the Rail Users Consultative Committee show an overall 30 per cent. drop in the
1138
number of passengers complaining during July, August and September compared with the same period the previous year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is not the Minister being extraordinarily selective in his approach to this matter? He has said not a word of criticism, let alone indictment, of Railtrack and not a word in support of the regulator, put in place by this Government, when he makes substantial and cogent criticisms of Railtrack. The Minister just passes that off. Would it not be of value to the travelling public to see a Minister who is less partial and more capable of being independent and objective when it comes to these vital matters of concern?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall certainly not take lessons on selectivity from either the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, or the party opposite. It is only noble Lords opposite, particularly those on the Front Bench, who do not recognise the achievements of rail privatisation. It is about time they ran up the flag on this issue, when everybody else who uses the services agrees that they are better. Noble Lords opposite said that fares would rise; they have been capped. They said that services would be considerably cut; they have increased. They said that investment would fall; it has increased. Those are success stories, and I have already underlined our support for the regulator.

Cyprus
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell rose to call attention to the situation in Cyprus; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the chance to address your Lordships for a moment on the Cyprus issue. Cyprus is a place of beauty and tragedy. It is the island of Aphrodite where thousands of British people enjoy their summer holidays. It is the country of origin of some 200, 000 Londoners. It is a familiar place to British people. But it has been, in recent years especially, a place of bloodshed and hatred. It has one of Europe's most successful economies and yet it is divided, north from south, by lines of armed men. It reminds us of the late unlamented Berlin Wall. No country in the world is divided so impenetrably, except perhaps Korea. I hope none of your Lordships wants to see the Korean example prevail in Cyprus.
My interest in the matter, I should advise your Lordships, is that I am chairman of Friends of Cyprus, an independent group that encourages the reconstitution of Cyprus as a sovereign state and the withdrawal of foreign troops from the republic's territory. Other noble Lords associated with Friends of Cyprus will address the House later.
Most of your Lordships will recall how the island became independent, only to find that its Greek and Turkish communities remained at odds. On the Greek side, men who had fought for independence from Britain continued to press violently for union with Greece even

1139
after their leader, Archbishop Makarios, had signed a treaty renouncing the idea. Conflict ensued and during the 1960s several hundred Turkish Cypriots were killed by over-patriotic Greek Cypriot terrorists.
The matter came to a head, with great loss of life, in July and August 1974. First, there was the attempt by Greek extremists to turn Cyprus into a Hellenic republic, contrary to international law and to the treaties signed by all parties involved. A few days later there was the Turkish army's military intervention in Northern Cyprus.
The results were terrible. About 4, 000 Greek Cypriots were killed, mainly by the Turkish army. A much larger number were injured. Several thousand Greek Cypriot women were raped. More than a thousand Greek Cypriots were taken prisoner by the invading forces and then, as the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, recently admitted, were handed over to Turkish Cypriot paramilitaries, who killed them. The Greek Cypriot community has still not recovered from that serious blow. At the same time, several hundred Turkish Cypriots were killed by the Greek extremists who proclaimed the "Hellenic Republic". The exact figure is uncertain, but Turkish Cypriots and Turks also suffered during those events and many were killed in the war that followed the Turkish invasion.
The rights and wrongs of the Cyprus problem cannot be decided on an arithmetical basis. However, it should be pointed out that the fatalities on the Turkish side are to be counted in hundreds, whereas those on the Greek side number many thousands, and that the island's population in those days was no more than half a million. It means that, on a proportional basis, these were massive casualties, borne mainly by the Greek side.
Both sides were employing a policy that would be known today as ethnic cleansing. The Greek extremists wanted Enosis, union with Greece, or a Hellenic Republic. The Turks wanted to drive the Greek Cypriots out of northern Cyprus, women and children as well as men; and that is what they did. The results of what they did are there for anyone to see—a Greek-free north and a Turk-free south.
Turkey claims, I know, that it was acting according to treaty rights. But it has made no attempt to restore the situation that prevailed before it intervened, as the treaties and many United Nations resolutions oblige it to do.
Twenty-two years have passed since that war and little has changed. Visitors to Cyprus will see the red flag of Turkey flying on the hilltops three or four miles from the Larnaca beaches, where British tourists swim, or along a line that cuts through the city of Nicosia. It is a grim reminder of Berlin during the East-West conflict and of the fact that, in one small part of Europe at least, there is still a cold war and any "new order" is conspicuous by its absence.
This armed division of the island, and the presence of 35, 000 Turkish troops on its soil, is a matter of great alarm to the Cypriots who live there, Turkish as well as Greek. Turkish Cypriots who wish to speak to
1140
Greek Cypriots are hardly ever allowed to cross the ceasefire line and go south to any meeting place. Mr. Denktash's administration will not issue them with passes to go across the line. I should be grateful if the Minister, who I know has visited Cyprus and has taken a keen interest in the problem, would make some comment on the question of passage across the line in both directions. I believe that the Turkish Cypriot administration's barriers to it amount to Soviet-style behaviour contrary to international law. The UN Declaration on Human Rights stipulates that everyone has the right to leave their own country and return to it.
This line of armed men is also very dangerous, as shown by the events of last summer. The Turkish side has been, to put it mildly, trigger-happy—very quick to shoot, as the East Germany border guards themselves used to be. Last year, in August and September, and later, one Greek Cypriot was shot for trying to climb a flagpole. A second was beaten to death by Turkish fascist thugs, known as Grey Wolves, imported for the purpose from the Turkish mainland. A third was shot dead simply because he wandered into the demarcation line looking for edible snails.
As far as I can see, nothing has been done on the Turkish side to investigate these murders. The incidents have fuelled bad feeling, extremism and public rhetoric, and at the end of the year yet another serious crisis erupted. It arose when the Greek Cypriot armed forces contracted to buy, and threatened to deploy, a Russian ground-to-air missile system. The Turks have threatened to take naval action on the high seas to prevent the delivery of this equipment.
Not for the first time, there has been the threat of war breaking out on the issue, not only on the island but, more widely, between Greece and Turkey, and maybe more widely still, throughout the eastern Mediterranean. The United States Government is to be congratulated particularly on the measures that they took to deter Turkish action in this event.
There are some who see merit in the status quo. It is said that the status quo has a certain paralysing stability and that at least it limits the amount of violence that can be perpetrated by one side against the other. I beg you though, my Lords, not to fall into the delusion of accepting the status quo as an easy way out. Violence will erupt sooner or later if something is not done quickly. The search for a settlement becomes all the more urgent as one sees the probability of war in the eastern Mediterranean, caused by desperation among the island's population.
The division of Cyprus is holding back the Turkish Cypriot economy. Immigration into Cyprus from the Turkish mainland continues in a way that upsets the island's inter-communal balance. And all this is happening in a country that, from the economic point of view, is well qualified to join the European Union and has indeed applied to do so and is expected to do so by the end of this century.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister what is being done to prepare for Cyprus's entry into the EU. There will be, we must expect, an unusual federal constitution in Cyprus even if we are successful in

1141
negotiating a settlement. If there is no settlement, there will be an even more nightmarish scenario as we try to accommodate a divided Cyprus. Are preparations being made in the EU machinery with Britain's help? I very much hope so.
I should like to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his visit to Cyprus last month. Previous holders of his office have tended to stay away, but Mr. Rifkind went there and produced a list of 10 points on which both sides in Cyprus are agreed, a sort of highest common factor of Greek and Turkish agreement. I believe that this exercise was extremely useful and I hope that Mr. Rifkind will pursue it.
Her Majesty's Government cannot solve the Cyprus problem—this must be done by the two communities—but we can help by suggesting to the two sides that there could be agreement, with goodwill on each side, to establish a bi-regional federal country. There could be negotiation; compromise, for instance, on the amount of territory held by the Turkish side. At the moment, it stands at 37 per cent. Both sides agree that it could be reduced—perhaps to 33 per cent. or, even lower, to 28 per cent. Agreement is not out of the question on this point.
There is also agreement that something must be done about the refugees, Turkish and Greek; but how? Are they to be allowed back to their homes, where they lived in 1974, or are they to be compensated with land or money? Both sides agree that there should be a central federal Cyprus government. But what powers should it have? Should it have powers over foreign policy and defence only; or should it have tax-raising powers, powers over the environment and fisheries? These are issues that I believe should be studied in preparation for the time when negotiations will begin.
Both sides agree that the two federal states ought to control their own internal security. How is this to be done? Will identity cards be needed, to be shown at border points? How will the extremists be kept out? Cyprus has been too much the victim of so-called patriots, who are really extremists. There must be no more murderous incidents on the line between the two federal states in Cyprus after a settlement.
I believe that there are many issues on which the two sides are in agreement, as outlined by Mr. Rifkind in his 10 points, and elsewhere. I hope that this line of encouragement will be pursued. I believe that both sides agree that there should be a common market and a single currency between the two federal states. The Greek side must help to build up the Turkish Cypriot economy. Again, how is that to be done? I imagine that the European Union and the United States will want to help, as will the three guarantor powers, of which Britain is one. It is in all our interests to clear up this fearful blot on the European map.
Britain has very close links with Cyprus today as well as in the colonial past. Many of your Lordships have been there and some have served there. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in his place, since he played such an important part in the events of 1974. I believe that we all seek a settlement of these problems. We look forward to hearing from the Minister
1142
about any way in which the British Government can encourage this process. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on having initiated this debate, which some of us may feel is a little overdue. I also congratulate him on the effective way in which he has for some years been chairman of the all-party Friends of Cyprus group, of which I am also a member. I have had the opportunity to pay a number of visits to Cyprus over the past 10 or 15 years. On a number of occasions it has been possible for me to visit the northern part of the island, as well as to have extensive discussions with politicians in the republic.
It is 22 or 23 years since the Turkish army invaded northern Cyprus. I do not believe that there is anywhere in the world where a military invasion by one country of another's sovereign power has been allowed to continue for such a period of time and where the fact of that invasion has been largely forgotten by the world community. It is no wonder that those in Cyprus who want to see the island united believe that all too often the outside world is forgetting them and does not want to hear any more about Cyprus.
After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, 200, 000 people on each side have lost their homes. There has been enormous pain. I have talked to people who have been unable to return to their homes for 23 years. They have not been allowed to go to Kyrenia, even though that is where they were born and grew up.
There is also the legacy of several thousand people who disappeared at the time of the Turkish invasion and who have not been heard of since. There is the way in which, rather cynically, the Turkish Government have imported settlers into northern Cyprus from parts of eastern Turkey who have no particular links with Cyprus. It is believed that they have simply been put there to buttress the present regime in northern Cyprus. They do not identify as Cypriots with the cause of the island.
There is one other issue which causes a lot of anxiety and hurt to people on the Greek Cypriot side. It concerns the antiquities and historic sites, many of which are in the Turkish-occupied part of the island. So far as I know, no access has been permitted to Greek Cypriot antiquarians to look at the condition of the sites and possibly try to restore them. That is something which has deeply upset many Greek Cypriots. They believe that their heritage has been damaged, possibly irreparably, through their not being allowed even to see to the well-being of those sites.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, we have a green line dividing Nicosia and both parts of the island, rather akin to the line that divided Berlin and East Germany from West Germany during the years when the communists controlled the East. It is quite a formidable division of what was once a united island. If anyone has visited the Turkish occupied part, it is possible to see Famagusta as a ghost town cut off by barbed wire and decaying, as no people are allowed there. That is testimony to the divisions of the island.

1143
Cyprus is a member of the United Nations, and that should not be forgotten. It is a sovereign state recognised by the United Nations and the world community.
I agree that in the past, before the Turkish invasion, not all that the Greek Cypriots did in their treatment of the Turkish Cypriots was proper. The same is true on the other side. I have discussed that with Greek Cypriots in the government in Nicosia. They admit that they did not always treat the Turkish Cypriots as they should have done, but they are determined to learn from the lessons of the past and to make sure that in future Turkish Cypriots will be treated fairly and properly. So there is fault on both sides.
On the basis of conversations that I have had with people on both sides, the difference is that the Greek Cypriots are essentially looking forward and saying, "The past had elements that were undesirable and we are determined, if we can get our island united, to make sure that some of those bad elements from the past do not recur". I have talked to people in the northern part of Cyprus—the Turkish Cypriots—and they are obsessed with looking backwards. They are always saying, "This is how badly we were treated". I have asked them, "Why can't you look forward and be positive? Of course, there was bad treatment by one community of the other in the past". They tend to reply, "No, the important factor is that we must remember how badly we were treated".
On the Greek Cypriot side they have said to me over the years, "Of course, one of the difficulties is that we have caused no trouble. We have been docile. The world does not want to know. If there were trouble here, the world would pay more attention and maybe there might be a solution, but because we are causing no trouble we have been ignored".
When the communists were in control of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the feeling was expressed that Turkey was far too important to NATO to risk damaging NATO's southern flank. That is not quite the case any more. There have been the incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred, including the killing of a number of Greek Cypriots by the Turkish army or by others in the area between the two sides.
I turn to the question of missiles, about which a Question was asked in this House a week or so ago. I regret that the Greek Cypriot Government have thought fit to buy ground-to-air missiles from Russia. That is not helpful in moving towards a settlement. But I believe that they have every right to do so because they are a sovereign state and the missiles are purely defensive. I understand that they are ground-to-air missiles and therefore cannot be used in any offensive sense. They have also said that none of them will be put in place for 16 months or so. Nevertheless, I believe that it was an ill-advised decision.
However, there can be no condoning the threat by Turkey to attack the southern part of the island should those missiles be put in place. Surely those threats are quite unacceptable in the way they have been couched. We also need to remind ourselves that there is the
1144
enormous military superiority of the Turkish army in northern Cyprus and 40 miles away on the mainland. I understand that there are 35, 000 Turkish troops and 400 tanks and the Turkish air force is only minutes away. There is also the threat by the Turks to locate some of their ships near Kyrenia. So there is a complete military imbalance between the two sides. It is no wonder the Greek Cypriots feel that they are constantly under military threat from the massive resources that Turkey has at its disposal.
What is to be done? Over the past 23 years they have sometimes seemed to be approaching an agreement. The two sides seemed to be moving together, but all too often hopes were dashed and agreement was not possible. We need to hope that there will be tension reducing measures, because unless the tensions are reduced it is difficult to see how there can be sensible negotiations. There need to be confidence building measures. I only wish that the Turkish side would feel able to do a little to increase confidence that there can be proper discussions. It may be they do not want discussions, but confidence building measures are necessary.
The Greek Cypriot Government have called for the total demilitarisation of the island. I can understand why they want that, but I believe that any settlement must ensure that there are safeguards for both communities and that each community will be able to feel secure. That may involve some period of time before the armies are removed.
It is right that there should be a single citizenship for the island of Cyprus and the concept of a single sovereignty for the republic of Cyprus, representing the whole island. There should not be dual citizenship because that would encourage separateness and would not lead to the proper unification of the island.
There is a limit to what outsiders can do, but as a guarantor power we have some responsibilities. I believe that the West, the United Nations and Britain in particular have an important responsibility to influence what is happening. Although there is a limit to what we can do, it is reassuring that Robin Cook has given a commitment that he also, in the event of a change of government in this country, will work for the unification of the island and will encourage that process.
The division of the island of Cyprus is a constant tragedy. It is a reminder that the United Nations and the West have failed to deal with the continuing military occupation of a sovereign state. It is important that we are all committed—whichever British Government are in power—to doing all that we can to ensure that the tragedy of that island is brought to an end and that it is united in the not-too-distant future.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on initiating the debate now. The noble Lord's timing has been masterly, managing to coincide this debate with the meeting of European Foreign Ministers in Rome today with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mrs. Çiller,

1145
of which we had some account in the Guardian this morning. When the Minister replies I shall be interested to hear whether she can confirm the statements that are attributed to a Foreign Office spokesman there about the line that we are taking at the meeting.
The debate comes on the heels of a flurry of activity—with the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Cyprus last month and the visit of the Shadow Foreign Secretary to Cyprus last week, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Unfortunately, those initiatives do not reflect any new opportunities for a political solution to the problem; nor do they mean that anybody here in Britain has any additional ideas for a solution other than to continue supporting the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and his special representative Mr. Han Sung Joo. Madeleine Albright said that 1997 provided a window of opportunity, but that seemed to be an expression of hope rather than a conclusion drawn from the objective facts of the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to the 10 points outlined by the Foreign Secretary, drawn out of a hat, as it were, when he visited Cyprus. As the noble Lord acknowledged, those 10 points contained nothing new, but the way in which the Foreign Secretary put them managed to irritate both the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots. I shall not explain how that came about. It was more a case of what he omitted than what he included. It seems hopelessly optimistic to expect direct negotiations aimed at achieving a comprehensive settlement under UN auspices before the end of the first half of 1997, with preparatory talks starting early in 1997, as Mr. Rifkind demanded in point 7.
There have been no direct negotiations since October 1994, and there is no point in bringing the two sides together now unless there is some likelihood of making progress towards the comprehensive settlement we would all like to see. Only a week after the Foreign Secretary's visit, the Security Council was expressing itself,
"Gravely concerned by the deteriorating situation in Cyprus and by the fact that intercommunal tensions on the island have escalated and, over the last six-month period, violence along the ceasefire lines has reached a level not seen since 1974".
I think that we would all agree that since then things have got even worse on the island. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the proposed acquisition by Cyprus of the Russian S-300 ground-to-air missile, which he said was an "ill-advised" measure. I am disposed to agree although I must underline the fact that it was manifestly a defensive measure and there is no reason for the aggressive language and the military gestures by the Turks and their colonists in the north which followed that decision. Mr. Denktash, for instance, says that if the Government of Cyprus,
"fill the island with missiles",
they will have to take on Turkey, with its population of 65 million. Mr. Denktash and President Demirel proceeded to agree to develop what they describe as a "'joint defence concept". Turkey says that it will establish air and naval bases in the occupied north, and last week sent warships to the island.
1146
Mr. Bülent Ecevit, leader of the Turkish Democratic Left Party, says that Turkey must reject the federal solution for Cyprus, which has been the lynchpin of the Security Council's attempts to solve the problem over the years, and which was reiterated in Resolution 1092 of 23rd December 1996, in which it,
"reaffirms its position that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship"—
those points were omitted from the 10 principles outlined by the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Cyprus—
"with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as described in the relevant Security Council resolutions, in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession".
Mr. Ecevit was, of course, Prime Minister in 1974, and the Prime Minister of today, Mr. Necmettin Erbakan, was his coalition partner, and advocated then that Turkey should annex the whole of Cyprus. Mr. Ecevit seems to have forgotten that when he says on Turkish TV that "we" had no intention of placing the entire island under Turkey's sovereignty in 1974. Mr. Erbakan reaffirmed that he held a different view in 1974 when he said in an interview with the Northern Turkish Cypriot journal Halkin:
"we should have occupied the whole island and then separated it in two separate states".
What Mr. Ecevit is suggesting now—presumably, from his past, Mr. Necmettin Erbakan agrees with him—is the partition of Cyprus, with the north becoming an independent republic and Turkey resuming responsibility for its defence and foreign relations. That, he says, is the de facto situation which would then be formalised and the Cyprus file closed.
It is in this unpromising context that Mr. Han Sung Joo arrives in Cyprus today for discussions with the government and with the representatives of the Turkish Cypriots, presumably to see whether there is any prospect of getting them to negotiate directly on the basis of Security Council resolutions which are being repudiated so frankly by the Turks and their puppets in northern Cyprus. The defence agreement between the TRNC and Ankara is inconsistent with paragraph 14 of SCR 1092 and all previous resolutions of the Security Council. According to Mr. Denktash, the agreement also provides that Turkey will take representatives of the TRNC, "to those organisations that do not want to listen to us and say: Here are the Turkish Cypriots, and now they will speak". This is a unilateral implementation of Mr. Ecevit's proposal, and it makes further discussion within the boundaries established by the Security Council impossible.
It seems unlikely that Mr. Han will persuade the Turks to cancel the agreement made so recently with Mr. Denktash, and, indeed, it is not clear whether he is going to Ankara at all. If it proves impossible to get the parties round the table with an understanding that discussions are to be held within the parameters which had been agreed of a bicommunal, bizonal federation, what else is there left for Mr. Han to discuss?

1147
Most urgent is the need to reduce the military build-up, which increases the dangers of bloodshed and, ultimately, of the destruction of all the United Nations' painstaking efforts to achieve a solution of this problem over the years.
It has been said that there are 30, 000 Turkish troops in the north—that was the figure given by the Secretary of State in his last report—plus another 4, 500 Turkish Cypriot auxiliaries. The republic has 11, 500 men under arms and 123 main battle tanks. When one considers the government's programme of modernisation one should also take into account, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, the enormous weight of the Turkish armed forces and their highly sophisticated modern weaponry which stands behind their already superior forces in the north of Cyprus itself.
The Washington-based Human Rights Watch calculates that NATO has given Turkey over the years more than 500 combat aircraft, 500 combat helicopters, 5, 000 tanks and thousands of artillery pieces, mortars, machine guns and assault rifles. The United States is supplying Turkey with 120 ground-to-ground missiles with a range of 165 kilometres, which could be used to attack Cyprus from the mainland.
According to Pax Christi International, the UK has recently supplied the Turkish armed forces with radios, night vision equipment and minesweepers. We are not in the same league as the Americans and Germans in supplying weapons to Turkey, but we should also pay attention to the recommendation of Human Rights Watch that all arms supplies to Turkey should be suspended until it no longer engages in gross violations of human rights and the laws of war. If for reasons of realpolitik the EU states continue to ignore the obligations that they freely assumed in the OSCE's principles on conventional arms transfers of November 1993 they should at least stipulate that military equipment that is supplied to Turkey is not transferable to northern Cyprus.
The Secretary-General also refers to the proposals made by UNFICYP in October for the extension of unmanning to areas where the opposing forces are close to each other; the prohibition on loaded weapons along the ceasefire line; and the adoption of a code of practice by troops along the line to minimise the risk of incidents. I understand that hardly any progress has been made in implementing this package in the past three months, although UNFICYP is discussing it this week with representatives of the military on both sides. In the absence of trust between them, and with the suspicion that any scheme of this kind will increase rather than reduce the vulnerability of people who live and work near the line, even such modest confidence-building measures are unlikely to be agreed. However, the Government of Cyprus have suggested that unmanning should first be tested in three main areas where there are no dwellings near the line, and that will be better than nothing.
The Foreign Secretary's 10 points omit—understandably in one way—any mention of the fallback position to be adopted if the negotiations do not get under way. He says that if a political settlement is
1148
reached in 1997 EU accession negotiations will be conducted with the sovereign bizonal, bicommunal state of Cyprus six months after the conclusion of the IGC. But the EU is also committed to the accession negotiations whether or not there is a political settlement. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, it is obvious that failure will complicate the accession negotiations, because interim arrangements will need to be made to apply the benefits and obligations of membership in only one part of the sovereign territory of the republic.
It should be made clear to the Turkish Cypriots and their masters in Ankara that they have no veto on the accession negotiations and that, on the contrary, failure to reach a settlement of the Cyprus problem could prolong the economic isolation of the TRNC and the consequent hardship suffered by ordinary people who live in the entity, though not by their leaders.
If the negotiations fail it will mark a decisive turning point in Europe's relations with Turkey. Because of the Cold War it suited the West to regard Turkey as part of Europe, and that antinomy was reflected in Turkey's membership not only of NATO but other institutions like the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Yet Turkey has never been prepared to conform with the rules of those organisations. If she now blocks a peaceful solution of the Cyprus problem it will be seen that she does not belong in groups that adhere to the principles of peaceful co-operation and compromise. A great deal turns on Mr. Han's mission impossible, and we must all hope that, as in the film, the hero can succeed in the face of all the odds.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for bringing this subject to our attention today. Although it is necessary to touch on the past we should not dwell too much on that as it re-introduces bitterness and tends to stir up old passions which can only be detrimental to the essential need to find agreement to a solution of the Cyprus problem. We should look for future arrangements that lead to reunification of the strife-torn island. This is not the time or place to recall bitter memories or fan the flames of deeply entrenched resentment which would only cause future negotiations to become more difficult or prevent them taking place at all.
My knowledge of Cyprus is based on the fact that I served in the Army and lived there over a period totalling six years between 1967 and 1987: first, in the sovereign base area of Dhekelia at a time when the island was not divided; secondly, as a staff officer in UNFICYP after the inter-communal boundary known as the green line had been established; and, thirdly, as chief of staff and, for a period, commander land forces in the sovereign base area of Episkopi by which time the island was truly divided.
To keep the situation in Cyprus in perspective it is necessary to go back to about 1960 and the London-Zurich agreement which, among other things, established the guarantor powers of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom to provide security for Cyprus.

1149
Too many people start their overviews with the arrival of the Turkish army in 1974. Back in 1964 many Turkish Cypriots had been forced by intense harassment to withdraw into beleaguered enclaves under UN protection. Even with this UN protection, the Turkish Cypriots suffered many atrocities and were denied resources and building materials for 10 years. In 1974 a Greek Cypriot by the name of Nicos Sampson led a coup in support of union with Greece. That incident triggered the deployment and intervention of the Turkish armed forces.
In 1976 UN forces in Cyprus under the command of General Prem Chand, a highly distinguished and most able Indian officer, had the unenviable task of evacuating all Turkish Cypriots from their homes and villages south of the green line to northern Cyprus. It was a most harrowing occasion for any observer. It was an occurrence in my life which is hard to forget. It resulted in the complete separation of the two communities, many members of which had been lifelong friends living in many mixed villages.
I turn to the political situation. There is a distinct fear that if a solution to the Cyprus problem is not found either the Turks or the Greeks may resort to the use of armed force to solve the dispute. If that occurred, inevitably there would be a possibility of conflict breaking out in the Aegean with two NATO allies fighting each other. It is quite possible that many Islamic countries would support Turkey and a full scale war between Turkey and Greece could develop. Surely, inability by the UK and western powers to resolve the Cyprus problem is unacceptable. Determined efforts must now be made. Help should be given to Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash to encourage them to hold direct talks leading to a formal agreement based on a bizonal and bicommunal federation with political equality—a principle that both sides have unofficially accepted.
I should like to make some observations on the application by Cyprus to join the European Union. Some time ago I thought that it would be more of a lever to bringing about a settlement in Cyprus if the dispute between north and south was resolved before negotiations took place for membership of the European Union. I now believe that I was wrong in that belief. I believe that the possibility of Cyprus joining the EU provides a distinct stimulus and a new opportunity to ensure that the differences and difficulties between the two communities can be overcome, leading to a lasting settlement based on a bizonal and bicommunal federation with political equality. The EU Foreign Affairs Council in 1995 accepted that negotiations on Cyprus joining the EU could begin and they are likely to start in about January 1998. The European Union announcement emphasised that accession should benefit both communities and mandated the Commission to develop contacts with the Turkish Cypriots to discover how their concerns about EU membership could be resolved. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the EU has held any discussions with the Turkish Cypriots and, if so, at what level? Talks should be held with the Turkish Cypriots in a similar way to those that
1150
the United Nations hold with them. It is clear that EU membership will bring substantial benefits to both communities.
To understand the Cyprus problem there is a need to know about military resources. There are some 30, 000 Turkish troops in the north and some 10, 000 national guard troops in the south. The Turkish troops are equipped with about 350 tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery and helicopters. The Greek Cypriots have been rearming the national guard with sophisticated weapons which now include the French Exocet missile, some 150 AMX 30 tanks, around 40 T.80 Russian tanks, APCs, artillery and helicopters.
During his visit last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that the number of weapons and troops was dangerously high. It is hard to believe that only some two to three weeks after his visit and his comment on the dangers of the arms build-up, the Greek Cypriots should sign an arms deal with the Russians for a number of SA300 surface to air missiles costing some £400 million. Surely this shows a defiant attitude when arms levels are already dangerously high? It is an unhelpful and unnecessary action which only makes it more difficult for the two leaders to come together for direct talks. The time has come to stop the arms race. Otherwise it could well lead to Turkey taking pre-emptive action against the Greek Cypriots should they implement the deployment of their recently acquired surface to air missile system. Indeed, Turkey has intimated that it will take military action, and a number of bellicose statements have been issued.
What is the root of the problem in Cyprus? I believe, in one word, the answer is security—security for each community. It is the lack of this and the failure to establish mutual trust and confidence between the two communities that has caused the division of the island for nearly 23 years. Without agreed security guarantees there will be no real lasting settlement in Cyprus. A situation must not be allowed to return whereby extremists from either side could upset an eventual agreement, once again plunging the island into feud and strife with people living in fear of their lives.
In 1992 Mr. Boutros Ghali, the then Secretary General of the United Nations, drew up a set of ideas which formed a framework for a bizonal and bicommunal federation with political equality. The ideas drew on nine main proposals and spanned aspects of a federation which dealt with the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and fundamental rights including freedom of movement, settlement and property ownership anywhere in the united republic. They also covered security and guarantees, territorial adjustment, displaced persons, economic development and safeguards, and transitional arrangement. These UN ideas for a settlement, providing for a unitary but bizonal and bicommunal federal state with political equality, have been accepted by the two sides as a basis for discussion and still represent their basic positions. But each has reservations and the ideas are not accepted in terms. The Secretary of State's recent 10-point plan adds a further useful dimension, encouraging the need for direct talks between the leaders of the two communities before the end of the first half of 1997.

1151
I have suggested that accession to the European Union will benefit both communities significantly. A window of opportunity will exist to re-open direct discussion between the two communities. A common base position is that both sides agree in principle that a solution for the island should be based on a bizonal and bicommunal federation. However no solution will be forthcoming unless all Cypriots show a strong will and determination to achieve one.
So what steps can the western powers take to encourage Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash to start up direct discussions once more? First, mediators should carefully pave the way in guiding subordinates on each side on how agreement could be reached. Secondly, strenuous efforts must be made by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that both sides will not face difficulties in presenting any agreed package stemming from direct talks. Thirdly, the build-up of weapon systems and military resources and the issuing of bellicose statements must cease. Fourthly, both communities should remain domiciled within their own zones for a number of years. Lastly, realistic compensation, assessed by an international body, should be paid by each side to those who have lost their property.
The Cyprus tinderbox could spark a war between Greece and Turkey at any time. That would severely weaken the NATO southern flank and no doubt provide Islamic support for Turkey which in turn could threaten oil supplies to the west from the Middle East and create many other extreme problems in this sensitive area. Already there is jockeying for position in the Middle East: Greece has established an informal defence accord with Syria, and Turkey has made a pact with Israel to allow warplanes of both countries to use each other's air bases.
The Cyprus problem is at a critical level. Every effort must be made to encourage the start of direct talks between the two leaders of the island to agree a solution based on the United Nations' set of ideas framework document and establish a bizonal and bicommunal federation with political equality.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I would like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, not only for bringing the possibility of debate to this House but for the work he does in company with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, President of the Friends of Cyprus. We are the friends of all Cyprus and there should be no misunderstanding about taking sides.
One of the bitter results of the present situation is that if a Turkish Cypriot wants to discuss his professional problems with another Cypriot who might live only a mile away, we have to organise meetings in London so that each can come separately, however near they live together in Cyprus. It would be much better if there could be some sort of referendum—although I do not always like referendums—among the ordinary people of Cyprus. There is no inevitability about this separation. I am sure that many noble Lords will have visited the
1152
Greek island of Rhodes, where there is no trouble at all between these two communities. After all, Greece has only been in Rhodes since the war, having turned out the Italians, but to be a citizen of Rhodes is hardly mentioned at all.
On the question of armaments, I would like to say this to the Minister, for whom I have great respect. I recollect discussing this matter many years ago with Tony Crosland, whose death was a serious blow not only to the Labour Government but to the country as a whole. Before I made my maiden speech in this House, he said, "It's no good you going on about Cyprus, Lena, because we have no clout with Turkey". Nothing that has happened since has disproved what he then said. We have heard today about the lack of balance between the Turks and Greeks in Cyprus.
I must spend a moment or two on rearmament. I was in Paphos last summer. People in the south are frightened. After all, they can read in their history books about the country's position under the Ottoman Empire. They tell me that there are threats. They ask, "Why else are there about 35, 000 Turkish soldiers here?". The whole of Cyprus is just about half the size of Wales. One Cypriot said to me during the summer, "Do you need 35, 000 soldiers to keep Mr. Nadir safe from British justice?". If they are not there to help him, what are they there for? They say, "Look how they treat the Kurds. Look at their disastrous human rights record and lack of press freedom". That is why they are frightened.
I know that the Minister appreciates the problem. In reply to a Question I asked about the discussions that were taking place, she said:
"The Secretary General has since made clear his view that the Turkish Cypriot side has not shown the good will and co-operation required to achieve an agreement".—[Official Report, 11/10/93; col. WA3.]
I hoped that things might have improved, but the latest news makes the position more doubtful than ever.
I share the hopes of others that arrangements will be made to incorporate Cyprus into the European Union, but we cannot have two separate parts of a country joining. That would be impossible. We have to seek a way—not just us in this House and in this country—to change the atmosphere. It will not be improved while there are these massive numbers of Turks—I have to say Turkey Turks—in the north.
There are now more Turkish immigrants from Turkey in the north of Cyprus than there are Turkish Cypriots. They are deliberately upsetting the demography. One of my Turkish Cypriot friends, of whom I have plenty, said to me in the summer, "I feel closer to those Greek Cypriots with whom my family has lived for generations than I do to those Anatolian immigrants". According to Turkey's own figures, over 4, 000 Turkish Cypriots have emigrated from northern Cyprus. Many have gone as far as Australia because they wanted to get away. There is no hard line, and we must find a way around or over the problem.
When I saw the pictures on television at the weekend of those Turkish navy ships in Famagusta, I was reminded that I was at Famagusta in 1960. I was present at the signing of the treaty of independence. My memory

1153
of Famagusta was of sitting at a table, with Hugh Foot, as he was then, sitting at its head. There was Dr. Kolcak on one side and Makarios on the other. All around the table were Turkish, Greek and British representatives. We did not mind that. It was a day of hope. Sir Hugh Foot decided that he would emulate Richard Coeur de Lion and sail home from Cyprus believing that a job had been well done. It was disastrous for him in the years following to feel that his signature on that treaty had been dishonoured. I know he was bitter and felt that this country had been dishonoured.
During the war, when we know that Greece paid such a brave price, there was a volunteer regiment called the Cyprus Regiment. Nearly 300 members of that regiment were killed. When I asked the War Graves Commission who they were, I was told that they had joined the Cyprus Regiment and that it had not made a note of whether they were Greek, Turkish or whatever: it was the Cyprus Regiment. My noble friend Lord Wallace, who was a member of the War Graves Commission, confirms that it was the Cyprus Regiment. Why cannot we achieve that feeling of being together? After all, if we were together then, it should not be impossible for us to work things out together now.
Many people living on both sides of the dividing line just want to go home. Most of them were originally farming people. One can look across the line and see that the olive trees are not so well cared for. People stare at their old houses. Both sides want to go home. Until that becomes possible, I do not see how we can let the matter rest. I know that Mr. Denktash has to make many more journeys to Ankara than Mr. Clerides makes to Athens.
I referred to the Cyprus Regiment, but many more people in the island joined other regiments. Mr. Clerides joined the RAF as a pilot. He was shot down over Germany. When the war ended, where did he go? He came back to Camden Town, where he was one of my constituents. He is probably the most hopeful ruler of the Greek Cypriots with whom we have had to deal for a long time.
We manage all right in Camden Town. I never know which waiter is which when I go to a restaurant. I do not care, and they do not seem to care.
I wish to ask the Minister two important questions. A recent edition of the Observer contained an article which appeared to suggest that, although we have a ban on supplying arms to either side, some arms appear to be getting through from Switzerland. Is that correct? Secondly, how much aid are we giving to Turkey unilaterally and how much is getting through under the terms of NATO? There is a gross disproportion in the balance, and the threat of the Greeks purchasing from the Russians cannot be understood unless the imbalance is corrected. Neither side will trust the other while the present situation continues.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for introducing the debate at this time and for giving us such a clear and comprehensive picture of the situation.
1154
It is eight years since I went on a defence visit to Cyprus, although I have been there on holiday since. Nothing basically seems to have changed. It is still split in two parts, with the Turks and the Greeks breathing rather more heavily over their respective ethnic areas. It is still a single and most beautiful island, the birthplace of Aphrodite, who emerged from the foam on a beach halfway between Episkopi and Paphos. When my husband and I also bathed there in the sparkling foam we were the only people on the beach, although I suspect my husband was hoping that another lady might emerge.
Apart from the natural beauty of the island, if one excepts some rather horrific tourist developments around Ayia Napa and Paphos, there is an inbuilt friendliness and warmth among the inhabitants, whether they are Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. Well, I would say that, would I not, being descended rather distantly from the fairytale Lusignan kings of Cyprus?
Cyprus has always had a warm relationship with Britain, dating back at least to the days when Richard Coeur de Lion married Berengaria in Limassol, and continuing with the current close relations with our services, both in the sovereign base areas and those serving on the north/south border with the United Nations.
When we visited a border post in Nicosia in 1989 the young officer had laid on a special tea for us. He gave us Earl Grey tea, with lemons given to him by Greek Cypriots and honey cakes given to him by the Turks guarding the border. I think that that says something for our relationship.
When my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cyprus recently, by visiting both the south and the north and going from one to the other he demonstrated that it is one island and must remain so, even if the administrations for the two areas remain separate.
Earlier this year my son and daughter-in-law were staying in an hotel in a remote village on the panhandle of Cyprus, whose Turkish Cypriot owner had been evicted from his original home in the south of the island in 1974. His current hotel had belonged to a Greek Cypriot, similarly evicted. It had been appropriated by the Turkish Cypriot Government, who had then sold it to him. He therefore held right of tenure by purchase in good faith and by all the work he had done on the property in the years since.
Too much has happened in the past. One can never go back and unscramble events to start again in the past where one left off. Now, at this very moment in time, is the moment to start and to go on from there.
My right honourable friend says that there are still 16 months before the Russian S300 missiles are delivered to the Greek Cypriots, which would further exacerbate the feelings of the Turks. That gives enough time to come to some agreement between the two parts of the island.
Thinking back on our visit, we had some lovely letters from the various service commanders thanking us for the small improvements in conditions which we were able to effect. But, above all, I prized the words of

1155
Mr. Camilion, the United Nations special envoy, who had spent so much time trying to effect a rapprochement between the north and the south. Thanking us for our good wishes, he said:
"Good words and good desires are most helpful in the place that I got".
Surely, if there are enough of these on all sides a peaceful and secure solution for the island's problems can be found.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on giving us the opportunity to talk about Cyprus and on the able way in which he covered the subject. I cannot match much of the expertise in this House, in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and others, but I have been involved in many ways with the problems of Cyprus. As my noble friend Lady Jeger mentioned, we have been involved since the early 1950s and I have a more "on the ground" approach than I would otherwise have had.
I shall not match any of the suggestions for a solution. I do not believe that we can do that here in a two-and-a-half hour debate. However, like many others, I am concerned about the deal which was concluded with the Russians to purchase missiles on 4th January. It has caused some consternation. With the purchase of the S300 missile systems, Cyprus aims to boost its air defences, countering Turkey's threats. I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who dealt at greater length with the Turkish threat. It is a real threat. Turkey already occupies 37 per cent. of Cyprus and has been there since 1974 in violation of repeated United Nations resolutions calling for withdrawal.
Criticism of the deal with the Russians has come from the United Kingdom, the United States and, of course, from Turkey. That was to be expected, but there are fears that such moves will cause difficulties in future steps towards a settlement and may create tension. None of us would deny that, but while part of Cyprus is occupied by Turkish troops—an estimated 35, 000—tension on the island will persist. Does not the purchase of those missiles send a message that efforts towards a settlement must be intensified and speeded up?
I understand that the missiles will be used to boost the republic's defence capability and are in no way an act of aggression. We have heard examples of the constant Turkish threat under which the people of the unoccupied area live. That tension has existed for 23 years and I share the experience of my noble friend Lady Jeger. During my visit last year I, too, felt the tension—one could cut it with a knife—as Turkish aircraft flew low over Nicosia. The fear and intimidation which such action is meant to evoke was evident among the local population. Threat and tension are constant and something must be done. The people have a right to ask what we are going to do. Are they expected to sit there and take that day in and day out? I recognise that there is a tremendous amount of tension, fear, intimidation and apprehension among the Cypriot population in that part of Cyprus which is not occupied.
1156
It is worth pointing out that Cyprus remains the only divided country in Europe, the only country marred by the presence of foreign occupation forces. Contact between Greek and Turkish Cypriots is prevented by the 35, 000 Turkish troops who continue to impose the artificial division and in effect operate the partition of the island.
Partition is a well-known expression for us in this part of the world. We know how many times and in what circumstances partition has failed. But I feel that there is hope in the minds of many that if we leave the matter long enough, partition will eventually be accepted and the problems will all go away. If it is contained, there will be no trouble for a while. But what will happen is exactly the same as happened in other circumstances where we continued with that kind of interpretation of partition. Korea has been mentioned, as have India and Pakistan. We do not have to talk about Northern Ireland because there are half-a-dozen other examples with which we have been involved. Are we now contemplating another? Do we take the view that if the matter is contained, it will go away? I do not think that that will happen and we should not expect it to.
Thousands of people—40 per cent. of the population—were evicted forcibly from their homes as a result of the Turkish invasion in 1974 and are prevented from returning. I have spoken to hundreds of people about this. Living where we do, it is difficult to avoid almost a daily conversation about the problems of Cyprus, past and present. Therefore, we have some experience of that. We know that thousands of people are still waiting to hear about the fate of their missing relatives. Not many people speak about that but it is still a problem for many folk where we live.
The attempt to strengthen the republic's defence is being criticised. But, had there been such vociferous criticism in relation to the continuing illegal presence of 35, 000 Turkish troops and those intimidating flights which violate the republic's airspace, perhaps the republic would not need to strengthen its defence. I feel that we have been amiss for many years in relation to the kind of support that we have given to UN resolutions. There have been no positive directives from this country. As a guarantor, I should have thought that there would be many, because certain powers are given to guarantors but those powers do not seem to have been exercised.
It has been mentioned that President Clerides's proposal for a demilitarisation of Cyprus is still on the table. He has made that move and he is genuine about it but there has been little reaction to it. The Government do not even say that they support it and will push for it and put some guts behind it. There is none of that and there is not much pressure being put on the Turks to take a more positive and understanding approach for that proposal.
It is possible that the strengthening of the republic's defences might facilitate the peace process in a way. The Turks have been intransigent: nobody can deny that they have been totally intransigent during their 23 years' occupation of the northern part of the island. There has been no move in response to the many approaches made

1157
by the various Turkish Cypriot leaders. Therefore, the intransigence and arrogance of the Turks stems from the fact that they have 30, 000 troops in Cyprus. They feel that they can afford to be arrogant, intransigent, demanding and unbending, as they have been for the past 23 years. It ill behoves us now to say that it is up to those who are being oppressed and being offended to do this, that and the next thing. We should look more closely at the real situation.
We know that government spokesmen for Cyprus have already said that those arms will not be used unless Cyprus is attacked. I believe them, because they have no need to use them unless they are attacked. I do not know where Turkey has obtained her armaments. I know—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned this—that the United States has announced an arms embargo on Cyprus but there is no similar embargo on Turkey.
Should we not be rather more even-handed, to say the least, in this situation where, as I have already said, there are 35, 000 Turkish troops and 400 armoured vehicles in Cyprus as well as the obvious permanent superiority of the Turkish airforce? Could it not be said that those factors are major reasons for instability in the region? Should we not remind ourselves of the contents of the 80-odd Security Council General Assembly Resolutions, which all repeat the same basic points?
It may be relevant to mention in passing the basic points which have been reiterated time and time again. The General Assembly:
"Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of occupation and acquisition of territories by force …, Deeply regretting that the resolutions of the United Nations on Cyprus have not yet been implemented …. Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is still occupied by foreign forces …, Reiterates its full support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and calls once again for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs …. Welcomes the proposal for total demilitarisation made by the President of the Republic of Cyprus …, Considers the withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus as an essential basis for a speedy and mutually acceptable solution of the Cyprus problem; [and] Demands the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus".
There have been 80 resolutions since 1974 but there were 20 or 30 resolutions between the period 1960 and 1974, so there have been more than 100 resolutions and those basic features appear in them all. Should we not press for the implementation of those proposals rather than stand back and criticise and say how it should be done? The problems could be solved if we supported those with real muscle and if we supported the United Nations resolutions.
I conclude by asking the noble Baroness one or two questions. First, I should like her to comment on how she sees the situation as it is now from the United Kingdom's point of view. I want to ask her whether the United Kingdom is still selling arms to Turkey and whether she thinks that there is a possibility of those arms being used in the occupied area. Finally, something else that has been mentioned but it must be re-emphasised, have the United Kingdom Government registered any protest about the three warships reported
1158
to be in the occupied port of Famagusta and what has been the Turkish response? I should welcome a positive response to those three simple questions.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I too am indebted to my noble friend Lord Bethell for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems of Cyprus. It is tragic that the background to this debate is that there is an arms race in full swing on this lovely island. There is possibly a greater density of armed men and weapons than anywhere else in the world.
Of course, any build-up of strength tends to give each side a sense of security or superiority but that is only at the expense of the other and so it is a vicious circle. Obviously, both sides must work most urgently towards a reduction. As the late Lord Attlee said, in a different context, a period of silence would not come amiss.
My noble friend Lord Bethell mentioned that he is a Friend of Cyprus. I must declare myself a friend of North Cyprus but I trust that that does not preclude me from being a friend of all Cyprus, which I have visited on several occasions. The first time that I visited the island was with a defence group some years ago and I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was with me at that time.
I do not want to hark back to the past, but, even in such a short debate, I find it difficult not to refer to the past a little. After the British withdrawal from Cyprus in 1960, the new constitution brought about a bicommunal republic of which the Greek Cypriots were the senior partners because of their greater numbers but which also guaranteed the rights of the minority, including a provision for a Turkish Vice President and, indeed, many other safeguards. That 1960 state of affairs was guaranteed by Britain, Turkey and Greece under a treaty of guarantee. I believe that it is the failure of that guarantee which makes the Turkish Cypriots so nervous: once bitten twice shy.
As we know, all went disastrously wrong from the start and within three years the Greek Cypriot majority had effectively destroyed the constitution, excluding the Turkish Cypriots from their allotted positions, who, to all intents and purposes, then became stateless citizens.
Between 1963 and 1974 there were faults and excesses on both sides but I believe many are agreed that it was the Turkish Cypriot minority, totally unprotected, who had by far the worst of it. That forced a very substantial Turkish Cypriot emigration. We do not seem to hear about this from those who deplore the increase in the Turkish Cypriot population which has taken place in recent years. Nor, if I may say so, do we hear very much about the settlers who have arrived in Greek Cyprus from Greece and elsewhere.
As we all know, the crunch came in July 1874. There was a Greek coup and Greek troops came into the island. That is when Turkish Cypriot families began to be massacred with a vengeance. The Turkish Cypriot powers appealed to the guarantor powers to help, but Britain did nothing and only Turkey took action and sent in troops to protect the Turkish Cypriot minority; that is why they went. Therefore, the reason for there being so

1159
many Turkish troops in Cyprus was that so many Turkish Cypriots were in danger of being massacred—indeed, a considerable number of them were. Of course, that is not to say that there should be a reduction in Turkish troops at the earliest possible moment. Then, following an agreement made in 1975, the Turkish Cypriots moved to the north and the Greek Cypriots moved to the south. That resulted in many innocent people on both sides suffering greatly.
After that, it is difficult to see what the Turkish Cypriots could have done. As we know, they did eventually set up their own Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983 but they still made it clear that they wished to work towards a new constitution for the whole of Cyprus. I find it incomprehensible that the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus should not be recognised after this long period of time as the Turkish Cypriots have repeatedly made it clear that they accept the concept of bizonal, bicommunal federation. Moreover, it is normal practice for the UK to accord recognition on a pragmatic or de facto basis. Mr. Denktash's Government not only exercise de facto sovereignty but also do so by the express will of the people.
As long ago as 1987 the Commons Select Committee recommended that, whatever the prospects for an early settlement, the British Government and others must recognise the need to release northern Cyprus from its present pariah status and that everything should be done to facilitate contacts between northern Cyprus and the outside world. I congratulate my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, on his recent visit to Cyprus, on actually crossing the green line and entering the forbidden territory which, officially, does not exist. Perhaps that is a hopeful sign.
Obviously the Turkish Cypriots are very aggrieved that they are still discriminated against and, for all intents and purposes, do not exist as a separate country in so far as diplomatic relations are concerned. The Greek Cypriots have had little incentive to agree to the bizonal solution because the present situation suits them very well indeed. The Greek Cypriots alone are recognised as the Government of Cyprus, being represented at the United Nations and Commonwealth meetings, yet it was they who broke the 1960 constitution. Moreover, the Greek Cypriots receive virtually all the foreign aid and investment whereas the Turkish Cypriot republic does not even have direct air or sea communications and has to rely on Turkey for almost everything. The one-sided nature of international proceedings on the Cyprus question must surely impair the authority and fundamental validity of the resolutions and decisions passed by the numerous General Assemblies, Security Councils and other bodies which the Greek Cypriots so often use in support of their case.
Now, the switch from the United Nations to the European Union platform has unnerved the Turkish Cypriots considerably. Unilateral application by the Greek Cypriot Government, claiming to act on behalf of the whole island of Cyprus, for membership of the EU seems to me to be fraught with danger. I feel that an application at this stage is premature and could only
1160
succeed after a full settlement between both communities on the island. I believe that my noble friend the Minister, who will reply to today's debate, said on 13th January in this House that she did not believe that accession without a comprehensive settlement would come about.
Of course the difficulty is that the Turkish Cypriots would not recognise the authority of the Greek Cypriot Government to act on their behalf before a settlement, mainly because, in effect, that would bring about the one thing that they have been dreading and resisting all along; that is to say, union with Greece. That is because Greece is an EU member while Turkey would remain outside. As I understand it, the EU rules would also mean that the Turkish Cypriots would lose any protection that they might negotiate against being swamped in northern Cyprus by Greek Cypriots. Worst of all, from their viewpoint, they would lose the protection of Turkey, as Turkey could hardly intervene in such a situation which involved an EU member state. At any rate, that is what I understand they are afraid of, and with some justification.
The danger in all this is that it could inevitably lead to a closer integration with Turkey, not because the Turkish Cypriots generally want to become part of Turkey but because they would see no alternative to closer integration with the only friendly country. It seems to me that the present western policy of discriminating against the Turkish Cypriots is becoming increasingly dangerous and serious. It is driving the Turkish Cypriots ever more towards Turkey; and, indeed, driving Turkey away from the West towards the hard Islamic East. As has been mentioned today, Turkey is an important nation of some 60 million people and huge economic potential, which is vital to NATO and of great strategic importance in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. If it has democratic institutions not as firmly established as some would wish, then I would have thought that it is essential that good relations are maintained and every encouragement given.
However, the trouble is that western policy towards Cyprus is damaging relations with Turkey as well as with Turkish Cypriots themselves. Turkey is growing tired of Cyprus being used against it in almost every international forum. There was a recent article in the Financial Times which reported that the chairman of the Turkish Parliament's Foreign Relations Committee stated,
"that Turks are becoming disillusioned with Europe. Turkey sees itself as European but people feel that Turkey is not wanted in a Christian Club".
Perhaps the most fundamental difficulty is that the Turkish Cypriots will never agree to any large-scale movement of Greek Cypriots into their sector. At enormous cost, suffering and bloodshed, the two communities are now separated and it would be disastrous to mix the two communities once again, with their different languages, different religions, different race and different culture. The basic truth is that they are two separate and distinct ethnic communities. In fact, they are two peoples.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, not only for initiating the debate but also for having made a speech with every word of which I agree. That always seems worth an expression of thanks across the House. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, for his speech. It indicated fully and accurately the Turkish position. In our inner minds—without spending too much time talking about it—we can consider what value and coherence his speech contained.
The problem we debate relates to even-handedness. We may all start from the assumption that even-handedness is good: that if people are quarrelling and we are not directly involved, we must, above all, be even-handed. I do not believe that that is tenable in Cyprus. Even-handedness is acceptable only when other factors are equal; but in Cyprus they are not. I shall come back to that point later.
While we may not have considered the point at length in the debate, we have heard how the independent state of Cyprus, emerging into independence after the British Empire, has three guarantors: Britain as the ex-colonial power; Greece as part of the same linguistic group as the majority population; and Turkey as part of the same linguistic group as the minority population. When we consider the past history, it is not that some country has invaded and occupied a part of another, but that one of the guarantors of the independence of that country has done so; and we are another guarantor of that independence. Can we say that we are content with the vigour with which we have prosecuted our manifest duty to induce the other guarantor to go back?
I am also struck by a kind of time warp. The fault of the Greek colonels and Nicos Sampson is held to be in some way equivalent in the moral balance to the continued Turkish occupation. The Greek colonels were a despicable fascist government who took over after a coup d'état. Their installation of Sampson was a ridiculous convulsion in their very last days—they must have known that they were their last days. I do not remember how long Sampson lasted. It was days rather than weeks and certainly not months. He was duly got rid of. He would have been got rid of even if the Turks had not invaded. Greek Cypriots are not the kind of people to sit down under a continuation of the Athenian colonels' regime which might have been established at the very moment the colonels became defunct. That would not have happened.
However, Turkey did what it did. It is now a problem which affects the European Community, the tricky balances around the Middle East, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and—this has hardly been mentioned yet—Islamic-Christian relations in general. It has poisoned all those for 23 years. The price that we have paid has been well shown by the fact that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, could be a thread of opinion which is heard in this country from British people.
I apologise to the House. I should have begun by declaring an interest. I have visited Cyprus many times. On one occasion I was the guest of the legitimate
1162
government of Cyprus for some days. I have also visited the north, although, if I remember aright, not in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough. Perhaps I should regard it as a kindness, which ought to be entered as an interest, that the occupation forces in the north admitted me for the inside of a day.
Not only do we have the history of UN resolutions defied one after another, the unanimous condemnation of the world ignored, and so on, but now the arrival of what begins to look like an arms race. The House may hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will put the matter in perspective. We all heard the comparison of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of the ground-to-air missiles on one side and the ground-to-ground missiles on the other. What assessment can one make of the Turkish military forces on both sides of the strait, compared with the Greek Cypriot forces? One cannot say that the Greek forces are on both sides of the strait, because they are too far from Greece to expect military support if it were to come to a fight.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will anticipate the answer that she will give me (it may be coming from her noble friend Lord Howe) about whether Her Majesty's Government regard those Russian SAMs and similar missiles as being aggressive or defensive weapons, or both. In arriving at an understanding of the military balance, that is the all-important question.
I think that at some time during the second part of last year there was a shift in UK-US policy on the Cyprus question. I refer to phrases that one picks up in ministerial governmental declarations in both Washington and this country. There seems to have been a shift away from wholehearted endorsement and pressure in favour of compliance with UN resolutions, towards even-handedness. In this case even-handedness cannot be in place. It would be a grave mistake if we ever stood back and began to regard the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and the Turkish invasion army, as just another remote population who were bickering in a way we find unreasonable, and that we must knock their heads together—no longer physically but morally—as one does to equal contenders who are tiresomely disturbing the peace. Realities have to be recognised. They are historic. One short, sharp and idiotic wrong was committed by Greeks against Turks, since when there has been 23 years of relentless military occupation and prolonged wrong committed by Turks against Greeks.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate Cyprus; it is the first we have had for some time. My noble friend Lord Dubs says that the debate is a little overdue. I agree. But at least, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, it is a very timely debate.
The international effort to find a peaceful negotiated settlement is now being intensified. We on this side of the House strongly support that effort and hope that it leads to a breakthrough that will end 23 years of division on the island. Moreover, if we win the election, we will work hard to find a solution that is consistent

1163
with international law and United Nations resolutions. We must not forget that the UK has a special responsibility to Cyprus. Not only is this country a permanent member of the Security Council and a member of the European Union; it is also a guarantor of the Cyprus constitution. It is vital that we do all we can to help bring about a lasting settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, went into the sad history of the conflict. I do not want to repeat what he said. I do, however, want to repeat something that I learnt at the weekend about the two communities in the United Kingdom. I was told by a friend of mine who is a lecturer in a further education college just north of London that there had been some concern in the college about whether Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot students could work together. That concern turned out to be completely unjustified. The students work together in the same classrooms and get on very well. I hope, similarly, that the will exists in both communities in Cyprus to find a way through so that security is guaranteed for all Cypriots in a relationship between the two communities based on equality and that all the refugees from this sad and tragic conflict will eventually be able to return home.
We support UN proposals for a bizonal, bicommunal federation. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs visited Cyprus last week in order to discover more about the views of both communities on what should happen next and how progress can be made on reaching agreement. Our view is that any settlement must be acceptable to both communities and must entail a single sovereignty as well as two politically equal communities with a high degree of autonomy.
Later today there is to be a debate on the Commonwealth. Cyprus is a valued member of the Commonwealth. A Labour government would want to explore with the Government of Cyprus whether the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting this year, of which Britain will be the host, can help to contribute to the momentum in bringing about a solution to the Cyprus question.
The Labour Party also welcomes the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union. I hope that the application can help to act as a catalyst for a solution to the problems of the past 23 years since we all want Cyprus to join as a united country. There is, however, a danger that Cyprus's wish to become a member of the EU could become entangled with Greek and Turkish disagreements about the future of the island. In any case, the application from the Republic of Cyprus should be considered on its own merits and no third party should have a right of veto, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, argued.
But any consideration on its own merits must take into account the political situation in Cyprus itself. The Minister said at Question Time two weeks ago that accession without a comprehensive political settlement in place was unlikely to happen. Perhaps she will repeat that statement. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, asked a number of very pertinent questions about preparation for Cyprus's entry which I hope the Minister will address.
1164
Cyprus's bid to join the European Union should be seen as an important new opportunity to make progress towards settlement. Similarly, Turkey cannot hold out much hope of encouragement in any bid it may wish to make to join the European Union if its attitude towards the conflict within Cyprus is belligerent and uncompromising. An arms race with Turkey is not consistent with Greece's stated ambition to join the European monetary union, given its colossal national debt. Aspirations to participate fully in the European Union among all the players in the Cyprus conflict therefore provide the international community with some leverage in obtaining a settlement in Cyprus.
Progress in achieving that cannot have been helped by the Cypriot Government's decision to purchase missiles from the Russians. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the decision was ill-advised. Will the Minister say whether any approach has been made to the Russians to ask them to back out of the deal? Given the fact that advanced surface to air missiles in Cyprus can only inflame the situation in the eastern Mediterranean, would it not have been more responsible to have refrained from a deal of that sort? Not that an approach from the UK Government—given their record on arms sales—would be likely to cut very much ice. However, a United Nations initiated proposal for an embargo on further weapon supplies to the island would perhaps help in the long-term goal of demilitarisation—an aim which I believe we all share. Since apparently no delivery of the missiles is planned for 16 months, there is some time to see whether ways can be found to prevent them ever arriving. Then the confidence building measures to which my noble friend Lord Dubs referred can be introduced.
It is a pity that Mr. Clerides seems to think that there is some advantage in raising the military stakes prior to attempts by the international community to start talks with both sides. The Cyprus Government would do better to cancel the order rather than use it to point a gun at the heads of those who are trying to act as peacebrokers. I know that the Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said as much when he visited Cyprus before Christmas. But can the Minister tell the House a little more about the outcome of the recent visit by Mr. Cavanaugh, the United States envoy to Cyprus, than we have read in the newspapers? It appears that some progress was made in defusing tension. That may be true; but any building of trust, which is a necessary condition for successful talks, is unlikely to occur while the threat of missile installations continues.
I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Stallard that the Turkish reaction has served only to increase tension further. As he and other speakers said, Turkey already has air superiority over Cyprus as well as substantially more troops in northern Cyprus than the Greek Cypriots have in the south. Threats to carry out pre-emptive military strikes on any air defence system that might be installed is a dangerous over-reaction. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what approaches have been made to the Turkish Government to persuade them to take a more measured position. If Turkey wishes to remain a respected and

1165
dependable member of NATO, threats of that kind are surely out of place. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, rightly drew our attention to the trigger-happy behaviour of the Turkish military in northern Cyprus.
The Cypriot Government's decision to purchase missiles follows a difficult and unstable period on the island with renewed tension during the summer along the cease-fire line separating the two communities. One positive result of Mr. Cavanaugh's recent visit is agreement on the two sides for a new code of conduct along the green line. That includes proposals relating to the unloading of live ammunition by soldiers on either side of the line and unmanning sentry posts. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the proposals and their implementation.
A number of speakers have called for restraint on all sides. It is now some time since both sides accepted a bizonal, bicommunal federation as the best, even if far from perfect, solution to the conflict. The problem is that neither side seems to know quite how to get there or how to make the compromises necessary to get there. The Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, with large numbers of Turks from mainland Turkey acting as quasi-colonists, cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. A number of speakers referred to the unacceptable and rather cynical encouragement of this migration by the Turkish authorities. There is, however, some hope that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots can share their beautiful island on an amicable basis, just as the young Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can study together in the same class in north London. It will, however, require courage and compromise on both sides. As my noble friend Lady Jeger said, there is no inevitability to the divisions that exist. A fair and just solution must be found after so many years of conflict.
The United Nations has made it clear that more effort will be put into mediation to solve the Cyprus problem in 1997. The United States is ready to throw its weight behind achieving such a settlement. Whoever is in power in the United Kingdom after the general election, the British Government must do all they can to make 1997 a year in which the conflict there is resolved so that Cyprus can go on to take its place as a member of the European Union, provided that it meets the other conditions for entry. As I said at the outset, a new Labour government would do all they could to bring that about.
5.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for giving us this opportunity to discuss the situation in Cyprus. I still remember very well leading the British delegation to a CPA conference in Cyprus three-and-a-half years ago. I remember taking the opportunity to visit Mr. Denktash across the green line, to go down the green line with the soldiers and to discuss with the Greek Cypriot leaders what more could be done.
I came away with the abiding view that has been expressed by many in our debate today that reducing the tension, starting the talking, building up the
1166
understanding are the only ways to resolve the problem. At present we face a situation where the leadership on each side has become implacably unwilling to listen to the other side.
We have moved into another year without a settlement. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, we believe that 1997 can and must be a year for real progress. The tensions were described by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and they know them well from their previous constituencies and present residential friends. They know just how people have overcome the tensions when living in this country or staying in third countries and how much they feel those tensions when they go back to Cyprus.
Today we have heard many eloquent contributions about the wrongs and injustices in Cyprus over the past 30 years and more. It is a story of much pain, deep suffering and divided families. Above all, what is required is action, not more hand-wringing. That was precisely the point which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made when he visited Cyprus last month. Nineteen ninety-seven is a very important year for the future of Cyprus. It is a year in which to make a real effort on both sides to change the status quo which has prevailed for far too long.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for what he said about the Foreign Secretary's visit in December. Without going through the 10 points of the basis for making further progress, I think it is notable, as my noble friend Lord Vivian said, that each of the points is accepted by both communities. Therefore, there is a basis on which to build.
The violent clashes which were witnessed last summer along the UN-patrolled buffer zone were a stark reminder of just how fragile that status quo is, as my noble friend Lord Vivian and others have said. In recent weeks, we have had the powerful and unhappy reminder that Cyprus is the setting for a dangerous arms race in the Mediterranean. There is now a greater density of modern weapons and men under arms in Cyprus than just about anywhere else in the world. That is exceedingly dangerous. The decision by the Cyprus Government to buy Russian-built SAM-10 missiles adds to the stockpiles. It must be said that it also adds to the already palpable tension and insecurity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me what approach had been made to the Russians. Yes, of course, we made it absolutely clear to the Russian Government at the first available opportunity that that was not a helpful development and that clearly they should desist. I cannot tell the noble Baroness of any positive reply, I regret to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether the missiles were defensive or aggressive. In this context I do not think that the distinction is particularly meaningful. The missiles stir up the situation and, whether or not they are there for defensive purposes,

1167
they are seen as aggressive by those against whom presumably they are intended to be used. Otherwise, why would they be purchased in the first place?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how can they be used against people? They are against aircraft, whereas the missiles that the Turks are acquiring from the United States are ground-to-ground missiles which can be used against civilians in Cyprus.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, they may not be used directly against people but if they are used against aircraft, it has certain consequences if the aircraft fall out of the sky. The missiles increase the tension and increase the will to react against them. That is why I described them in the terms that I did. In the absence of moves on either side to reduce arms and troops, each side ratchets up the race and increases the insecurity. It does not add to the security.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept another question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are in a timed debate, we have another one after this and I hope the noble Lord will understand that I am not prepared to keep giving way during the debate.
We have heard comments from my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, about the visits of Turkish warships to Cyprus. They are another ratchet in the arms race. We have made it clear to the Turks—indeed, to both sides—that they should take all possible measures to reduce tension and insecurity. Over the years, there have been visits to Cyprus, not only by Turkish warships but also by Greek warships. So neither side is blameless in that respect. But at present the visit of Turkish warships adds to the tensions.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked me about arms sold by the UK to Turkey. We have no evidence nor any reason to believe that arms sold by the UK have been deployed in northern Cyprus. Nor have we any reason to think that there is any intention to do so.
I mentioned the violent clashes witnessed last year. Whatever has happened in the past cannot be changed. What can now be done is to take definite action to reduce the tension. The Greek Cypriot decision to purchase the SAM-10 missiles and the reaction of the Turkish side already described just makes more uncertain and fragile what is not really a peace but a ceasefire at present.
The situation has wider implications beyond the island itself. It is now a continuous source of tension between Greece and Turkey. It is futile to debate whether rapprochement between Greece and Turkey is a condition for a Cyprus solution or whether the reverse is the case. Both can be argued. But the current situation requires urgent progress on both sides. That is why we must do our utmost to help the leaders of both communities reach a just and durable settlement which will allow them to live peacefully together.
1168
There is a real opportunity for a comprehensive political settlement in 1997. Britain is determined to sustain a particular effort to help turn that opportunity into reality by supporting, encouraging and persuading the leaders of the two Cypriot communities and by supporting the United Nations in the search for a settlement. Nothing less will match the importance which Cyprus has for Britain and nothing less will adequately fulfil the responsibilities which we in Britain have, about which we have heard so much today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, mentioned the problems of the Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus. We have always made it clear that the measures to change the demographic balance in Northern Cyprus will never improve the climate for a negotiated settlement. We are aware that there is concern on the Turkish Cypriot side about the issue. They can see in private the problems that it is beginning to create but normally do not admit it in talks. That is one reason why progress on settlement is overdue.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to an article in today's Guardian and asked about the meeting being held in Rome. It is held against the background of deep concern on all sides that the relationship between the European Union and Turkey needs putting back on a productive track. One aim is to underline that a viable and equitable solution in Cyprus should be an interest shared by all. I cannot give the noble Lord a read-out of that meeting for, although we telephoned, we have not yet received it from Rome.
In opening this interesting debate my noble friend Lord Bethell sought to persuade us to focus on the European Union accession preparations. It is fair to say that the European Union has maintained a structured dialogue with Cyprus. The next association council with the Government of Cyprus is due to be held in February. These processes are designed to help prepare for the opening of accession negotiations by Cyprus. We have had talks with the Government of Cyprus. It remains difficult for the Turkish Cypriots to engage formally with the European Union and the European Commission.
My noble friend Lord Vivian asked about the discussions between the European Union and the Turkish Cypriots. A number of member states—the United Kingdom prominent among them—have maintained extensive contacts with the Turkish Cypriot community to try to increase the understanding of how the EU works, how membership could benefit the Turkish Cypriots, and how the wider European family could help to resolve the problems. But the question must remain at the back of many minds as to whether both sides want to resolve the problems.
Why should 1997 be different from the years that have gone by without a settlement? One reason is that the EU dimension gives a new urgency and incentive. The European Union agreed to start negotiations for Cyprus's accession six months after the end of the IGC. While I cannot be precise, that in practice looks likely to mean that we would expect the negotiations to start in early 1998. We can envisage with considerable confidence that if the settlement was in place when

1169
those negotiations began, it would be an enormous step forward on a smooth path towards accession. But let me say clearly that there is no easy gliding into the EU for Cyprus. While it is easier with a settlement, no one should make the assumption that entry by a divided Cyprus is impossible, although it does seem unlikely, which was the comment I made in answer to a Question in your Lordships' House some 10 days ago.
Perhaps I can underline also that no non-European country has the right to veto an entry. Various things have been written in the press which may have made that less than clear. We have made the position clear to the Turkish Government. However, as my noble friend Lord Vivian said, EU accession negotiations could be a stimulus to end the differences. That is why there should continue to be discussions with both sides.
If a settlement cannot be achieved by the start of accession negotiations, we step into the unknown. We cannot and should not try to guess how the web of calculations would or could unravel. My conviction is that, in those circumstances, the situation would not only be more complex and obscure, but also much more dangerous. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are doing all they can, in the company of others, to bring about an easing of the tension and a more positive approach to the problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked what happened during the visit of the US envoy, Mr. Cavanaugh, to the island early this month. I understand that President Clerides made clear to him that no equipment related to the SAM-10 missiles would arrive before another 16 months. That was the information I gave the House 10 days ago. But he also confirmed to Mr. Cavanaugh a willingness to agree on unloading and demanning issues. The United Nations representatives on the island are continuing to have talks with the military forces on both sides so there may be some chance of agreement, although it will require a great deal of effort and some stepping back on both sides.
The influence of the United States and its interests in the region have an important role to play, alongside the guarantor powers and the European Union. We welcome the active participation in supporting the UN's mission of good offices. We will work closely and regularly with President Clinton's special emissary, Richard Beattie, and look forward to working with the new US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and her team on the Cyprus question. Sir David Hannay, Britain's special envoy, will visit Washington and New York at the beginning of next month for a further round of discussions with officials.
We are seeking to pull together all the efforts being made to try to find a peaceful resolution to the problem. There is much work to be done and Sir David Hannay is to the fore in all of that. His role is to strengthen our contribution to the concerted UN international effort. There is much one can say about the UN 1992 Set of Ideas. It contains many of the building blocks which are needed, but we need to use those building blocks; to interpret them in a sustained effort to fit the pieces together; and to try to make sense of the problems involved.
1170
In opening the debate my noble friend asked about the contacts and possible passage across the line. It is easy for outsiders, perhaps with prior arrangements, to cross the line occasionally, but it is extremely difficult for those within the island of Cyprus. Although we remind the community leaders on both sides that nothing can be gained from restricting people's freedom to move within the island, we do not have very much response. We shall continue to work hard to encourage bicommunal contacts. That is the way forward. We shall remind both sides that the contacts can only be helpful in building a basis on which both communities can peacefully co-exist.
In the end the keys to a solution do not lie in the hands of even a supportive and concerned friend like Britain; they lie in Cyprus. There is no reason why, with the will to succeed, a solution should be beyond the grasp of both communities. The time has come for their leaders and for Greece and Turkey to look for opportunities to reconcile, not opportunities to provoke. The politicians and the people of influence on both sides carry a heavy responsibility. They must avoid the rhetoric of confrontation and provocation. Both sides have had to live through a very painful period of history. It is easy to look back, reflecting on the injustices, the wounds and the wrongs. In fact, it is all too easy to fall back on the ready currency of recrimination, blame and hatred. Such options, easy today, will only make tomorrow much harder.
We have heard such familiar rhetoric in the past few weeks in the wake of the Cypriot Government's decision to buy those SAM missiles. We call again on both sides to resist the temptation to use this development to provoke and confront one another. Instead, we urge them to work wholeheartedly with the UN Secretary-General's special representative, Professor Han Sung-Joo who is now on the island for a round of intensive and detailed discussions. Britain remains determined to sustain active support for that process. We shall do all we can this week, next week and in the months and years ahead, to make sure that a peaceful solution to the problems of the divided island of Cyprus succeeds.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate, particularly to my noble friend the Minister for answering so many of our questions so clearly. I wish I could say that I was cheered by the debate. I was well informed by it but not very much encouraged to think that we shall see a solution to the Cyprus problem in the immediate future. Indeed, the future looks grim. We have witnessed the end of what might have been called in another context an annus horribilis on the island, with people murdered on the green line and with a threat by the Turkish military to blockade the island. It has been a very bad year. Let us hope that this year will be an improvement.
The debate has underlined the point—with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Ellenborough—that there is no enthusiasm for the status quo in Cyprus. There is no feeling of, "Let's keep things as they are. Maybe it won't be too bad and maybe

1171
Cyprus will agree to put up with it in the medium or long-term future". On the contrary, there is a desperation about the situation in Cyprus that could lead to an outbreak of real hostilities if it is allowed to continue.
I wish to make one point before urging the withdrawal of my Motion for Papers. What is to be the situation when we start to negotiate the entry of Cyprus into the European Union when or if there has been no settlement? I had understood that the Government's position was one of so-called "constructive ambiguity" and that they were encouraging both sides to co-operate over a settlement in order to ensure that the side which did not co-operate would be punished if it failed to do so. However, my noble friend has indicated straight out that Cyprus is very unlikely to join the EU in advance of a settlement of the problem.
I wonder whether that does not give too much of a signal to the Turkish side that it has, in effect, a veto over what is to happen in the event of no settlement being reached. Can we not say that we shall do our very best, whatever happens, to encourage Cyprus's entry into the European Union and that we shall try to accommodate Cyprus even if there is no settlement, even though it is what is called a nightmare, rather than give the Turkish side the excuse that the British simply think that it is very unlikely to be achieved? I do not know whether it is in order for my noble friend to answer. If she cannot, perhaps she will write to me on that point.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend has raised again an important point. I want to make it clear that, while I think it is unlikely, there is absolutely no veto for any country outside the European Union about who joins. We want to see Cyprus join. Let there be no doubt about that. We want to see a resolution of the problems. It will be very much harder to negotiate if there is no settlement in Cyprus—that is what makes it less likely—but there is no way in which any nation outside the European Union can have a veto on who joins. If Turkey goes on thinking that, then she will be mightily surprised.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Commonwealth
5.26 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley rose to call attention to the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to be held in Edinburgh; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the forthcoming biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is the first time in 20 years that Britain will be the host and the first time that it will be held in Scotland.
Tomorrow, the Foreign Secretary will launch the UK Year of the Commonwealth in recognition of the significance to Britain.
The Commonwealth is a unique organisation of 53 countries which is developing new relevance, not only politically, but economically. The liberalising of economies has led to increased competitiveness and the creation of new opportunities for trade and investment. Some of the world's fastest-growing economies, countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, are members; yet it is also the first and only organisation to recognise that small states are a special category which merit separate consideration and action. The Commonwealth's global reach has gained ever-reaching importance.
Previous CHOGMs have focused on differing issues with the underlying theme of international developments and considered ways of improving co-operation between members. Singapore, in 1971, resulted in an important statement of principles being agreed, including, inter alia, a commitment to equal rights for all, regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief; democratic self-determination and non-racialism; an end to poverty, ignorance and disease; and the achievement of a more equitable international society. Harare, in 1991, sought to redefine Commonwealth objectives with its significant declaration. Key principles to which all governments were expected to conform included the concept of good governance and the building and strengthening of democratic processes, according to national circumstances, respect for human rights, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, sustainable economic development and gender equality.
During the most recent CHOGM in Auckland, heads of government adopted a Commonwealth action programme to fulfil more effectively the commitments contained in the Harare declaration. It sought to promote and protect the Commonwealth's core values in three parts: advancing Commonwealth fundamental political values, promoting sustainable development and facilitating consensus building.
The action programme identified steps in the event that a member country was perceived to be in clear violation of the Harare Declaration, with heads establishing a mechanism of a Commonwealth ministerial group (CMAG) to deal with serious or persistent violations of the principles. Since then, the secretariat, in consultation with CMAG, has been engaged in assisting the successful elections and the search for peace in Sierra Leone, undertaken a process of dialogue with the Nigerian authorities following suspension action taken at Auckland and offered help to The Gambia in its programme of transition from military to democratic rule.
At the time of the Harare Heads of Government Meeting, no less than nine Commonwealth countries were led by military regimes or one-party governments. Since then, however, the Commonwealth, in pursuance of its political values, has contributed to reducing that number to one. Since 1990 it has organised 20 election observer missions—indeed, I had the honour to serve as an observer in the recent Bangladesh election—and has assisted many member states in their constitutional

1173
review, in reinforcing their electoral systems and in gaining familiarity with parliamentary institutions and procedures.
And so to Edinburgh. It is not possible at this stage to know with certainty the issues likely to dominate the 1997 CHOGM. Members have a great capacity for the unexpected. But it can be anticipated that three themes will be evident: democracy and human rights, sustainable development and consensus building. I would like to refer to existing Commonwealth work in these areas. The list is formidable and is by no means illustrative of all the good works carried out. I am constantly surprised by the depth of activities.
Work promoting good governance includes the provision of technical assistance for addressing the rule of law and for reforms in administrative and managerial practices in judicial institutions, including the restructuring of civil service and public enterprises. Additionally, the Commonwealth has an active human rights programme which, through education and training, exchange of information and the strengthening or the creating of national institutions, seeks to raise public awareness of the role of human rights.
Substantial work is undertaken in the area of economic and social development and development co-operation by helping member countries address problems of poverty and sustainable development and so contribute to political and social stability. Policy advice is offered with technical assistance and training in tackling a range of problems, primarily through the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation (CFTC), and although small in size, the fund has acquired a reputation for being flexible and responsive in meeting the needs of member countries, including an active programme of assistance in debt management.
While on the subject of debt, debt continues, as your Lordships will be aware, to be a major impediment to investment, growth and poverty reduction in a number of Commonwealth countries. The secretariat undertakes much technical work to strengthen the analytical case for relief. I believe that it is also right to record that the United Kingdom has been instrumental in placing the issue of multilateral debt centre stage on the international agenda.
Several member countries seek and obtain useful policy advice and operational technical assistance when undertaking structural adjustment programmes, including privatisation of public enterprises. The Commonwealth is also involved, at a time when aid resources are declining, in assisting members gain better access to international capital markets through the establishment of such mechanisms as the Commonwealth Equity Fund and the Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative, under the aegis of which the Commonwealth Africa Investment Fund (COMAFIN) was established.
Taking advantage of opportunities arising out of the Uruguay Round trade agreement, with particular attention being paid to the needs of countries which can be adversely affected by the erosion of preferences and high food import bills, is yet another area where assistance is offered.
Development of human resources in areas such as education, training and health by paying special attention to the needs of women, youth and children remains a high priority. The Commonwealth Youth Programme is, for example, a unique programme of this kind and contributes to national youth policy development, youth empowerment and human resource development for young men and women.
A priority has been to tackle particular security and economic problems of small states by establishing a ministerial group on small states to bring focus at global and pan-Commonwealth levels to their special concerns. In addition, the secretariat monitors and analyses political, security, economic and social issues of concern to small states. The secretariat also manages a Commonwealth Joint Office at the United Nations which enables nine small member states to maintain permanent missions at the UN.
Finally, consultation being the lifeblood of the Commonwealth association, senior officials' meetings provide opportunities to member countries for the mutually beneficial exchange of views, experiences and co-operation.
Yet for all the positive work, concern for the future of the Commonwealth exists in certain quarters. There are those who argue that the Commonwealth is outdated, irrelevant, ineffective and will not continue as a force for good through the millennium. I would like to address that. While the Commonwealth association is based on ties of shared history, common institutions, laws and language, it is essential that members recognise that nothing works effectively if taken for granted. I believe that all members should take a renewed interest in building stronger links with Commonwealth partners for many reasons, but not least that the Commonwealth is now seen as presenting economic opportunities for member countries on a trans-regional basis.
Edinburgh could also play its part by addressing underlying concerns in four main subject headings: the Commonwealth's role in relation to small states; the Commonwealth's role in dealing with wrongdoers in member countries; the criteria by which the Commonwealth expands its membership; and the strengthening of CHOGM as the Commonwealth's most significant decision-making mechanism.
Many small states embrace the Commonwealth as a major, if not the major, platform in their foreign policy. As we approach the 21st century, the people of those states will look to the Commonwealth to produce jobs and growth. Faced with large economic groupings, such as the European Union and NAFTA, small states confront a prospect of increased poverty and lower standards of living.
There has been a tendency for the Commonwealth to shy away from the internal problems of its member countries. The success of CMAG is an essential ingredient for the credibility of the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth is to retain a relevance as the 21st century approaches, it will have to be ready to speak out and take appropriate measures, with the secretariat empowered and funded to develop the capacity for preventing and managing conflict.
Indeed, I have long thought that the Commonwealth might have a peacekeeping role within the aegis of the United Nations. It should be remembered that the secretary-general has been involved in efforts to resolve potential and actual conflicts in member countries, including Bangladesh, Kenya, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia.
The Commonwealth must act in accordance with its principles or the people of the Commonwealth will lose faith in it. While welcoming Cameroon and Mozambique, membership issues must be addressed. The recent enlargement poses a challenge.
I believe that the unique attributes of language, style of informality, intimacy and consensus must be retained. Success of past CHOGMs has been the Retreat. Practical concerns are that of accommodating 53 Heads in an atmosphere to encourage spontaneity and flexibility—key elements of Commonwealth decision-making. This is an important issue and should be grappled with.
I favour the re-introduction of regional meetings. This was tried and tested some 15 years ago, but circumstances have changed since then, with a global move to regionalism. I believe that they used to be referred to as CHOGROOMS; but whether at Heads level or a meeting of foreign ministers in the intermediate years of CHOGM, there should be, in my view, serious consideration. That initiative would instil a sense of urgency and keep the issues alive.
Finally, it would be inappropriate if I did not refer to a cornerstone of the Commonwealth, the secretariat. No debate would be complete without comment on the machine which administers on behalf of Heads of Government. Since the Harare meeting, the secretariat has been engaged in a continuous review of its programme in line with the Harare priorities. It has also enhanced its cost-effectiveness and impact with a restructuring in 1993 and so reducing its overheads by 16.5 per cent.
At the same time, it initiated major independent reviews of its work programme in order to establish areas of best impact and comparative advantage. They demonstrated the value of the Commonwealth's programmes and what the Commonwealth can achieve with the limited funds at its disposal.
Heads decided in New Zealand to restore the secretariat's development programmes to their 1991-92 levels, but while the efficiency savings and programme reviews have helped to maintain the secretariat programme of work in substantial measure, the Commonwealth agenda has expanded significantly since Harare. This has the overall effect, through lack of adequate funding, of curtailing the scope of some programmes.
If the expectations of the Harare Declaration and the Millbrook Action Programme are to be fully realised, there need to be additional resources.
Industrialised countries and countries whose economic capacity has been improving in recent years should recognise and support more tangibly the
1176
association's potential by devoting a higher proportion of their multilateral budgets to collective Commonwealth endeavours. There is little question that there is a considerable capacity to do more if given the resources.
In conclusion, the challenge of Edinburgh should be to place social and economic development alongside the Harare principles as the driving force behind the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will then come alive and vibrant.
The Commonwealth has been marginalised for long enough and that has led to neglect and indifference. Membership benefits, both political and non-political, can and should be beneficial to all, but the importance must be recognised and acknowledged. The United Kingdom Government should strive to make the forthcoming Commonwealth meeting relevant and effective.
Frankly speaking, I believe this conference is coming to our shores not a moment too soon. We stand at a cross-roads. The European question is fast approaching the point of no return and the way we respond will affect future generations for ever more.
It should never be forgotten that Commonwealth members are real friends, friends with a mutual respect for one another. We in the United Kingdom cannot do without them. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, Margery Penham, in her Reith Lectures, the Colonial Reckoning, said:
"Immense difficulties face the new slates through which Africans intend to assert their equality. It may be a very long time before they succeed in this. The lamps of Africa may go out even before they are fully alight…Whether they do or not will depend very much upon the degree of understanding and help which we in the West give to Africa in the next two or three critical years".
She spoke in December 1961, against the background of the chaos of the former Belgian Congo, at a time when both Nasser and the Russians were leading a vociferous anti-colonial campaign.
Today we live in a world free of the Cold War—not least a world in which South Africa is back in the Commonwealth, a strong political force for stability and leadership. We have moved a long way since then (even despite the sad fate of Nigeria) although ironically, once the Cold War threat went away, so, to some extent, the West and especially America have tended to see less urgency in the problems of Africa.
I speak chiefly of Africa because I know it best, but, of course, the old Commonwealth has a vital role to play, even though our economic links with it have been affected to some degree by our move towards Europe. But in so many vital areas—technology, development, and higher education—the Commonwealth countries remain very close to us, as the Rhodes and Nuffield Scholarships, the Oxford Australian Fund, Queen Elizabeth House and a hundred other such connections all testify.
This is the moment to invest in the future. We are part of a powerful engine for change. We are looking at 1.5 billion people, half of whom are under 25—a world

1177
within the world, bound together by one language, English; by one legal tradition, the rule of law; and by one unifying factor which is unique to the Commonwealth, the Crown. There are moves from time to time, in Australia, for instance, to assert nationhood by rejecting the Crown connection, but that is not true of the Commonwealth in general where the Queen is the most powerful symbol.
In the appalling media circus, known as "The Monarchy Debate" on Channel 4 recently, it was heartening to hear Bernie Grant MP remind that audience that the Queen was the head of the Commonwealth, admired throughout the world; that her reputation in the Caribbean was one to inspire pride; and that she took as much interest in a tiny island as in a big country. With respect, our Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries come and go, but the Queen is always there, familiar with the problems of those countries.
When I was serving in the Congo, a week after independence, three of Lumumba's Ministers came to me to ask whether that country could become a British colony under the Queen. When I showed the film of the Royal Family to the diplomatic corps in Hanoi in the middle of the Vietnam war, the Soviet ambassador gave an admirable short lecture on the valuable role of the Queen in both the UK and the Commonwealth. A prophet is not without honour save in his own country.
Nick Ross said with a note of contempt yesterday on his radio programme, hearing someone praise the monarchy, "Why do you all want to look backwards to the days of tribal chieftains?" Perhaps that is exactly why Africans in particular, from Mandela to Museveni, can understand and relate to her: she stands for tradition and a life of service; for dignity and ceremonial; but she is also, like them, part of the modern world. We should indeed look forward, not back.
I hope that before we enter into the Commonwealth Conference we shall recognise that this is a critical turning point, as the noble Viscount said. There is a job to do and we have an instrument to do it with. The UN has been incompetent, profligate, arrogant, overmanned and rudderless, but it is all that we have, and now we have a new Secretary-General, a Ghanaian, who is widely experienced. This is the moment to hammer out a Commonwealth policy to ensure that some sensible things are done at the grassroots by the UN agencies, and that the World Bank and the IMF stop trying to treat countries which still have no sophisticated infrastructure as if they were African Switzerlands or Denmarks.
We need to agree some limited and clear objectives, for instance, to protect the slow but sure return to sound government in Uganda and Ghana, and, as a multi-faith body, to resist such developments as the promotion of Islamic fundamentalism in Africa.
Let us build on what works for a start. I know that my noble friend the Minister has built a most effective network of working relationships with Commonwealth leaders, based on the very practical tasks which our aid effort executes so well—grassroots operations in partnership with the countries being helped, but backed by a long-term strategy.
1178
I am much impressed by the broad sweep of activity in the Commonwealth, promoted by the Commonwealth Institute, the Secretariat, the Commonwealth Development Institute and the Royal Commonwealth Society. As the noble Viscount said, the sweep of their activity is immense. I hope that the Government will indeed, as I believe that they are minded to do, renew their support for the institute, but I have one concern and one proposal.
Despite all the interaction with the national curriculum, I fear that what is being taught in schools may be rather peripheral and give a false, if politically correct, picture of the Commonwealth's origins. The Commonwealth countries began as colonies. It is not reasonable or reassuring to read in the list of publications, "Education Pack for Schools—From BBC documentary on Cecil Rhodes, updated". We do our school children a disservice if we say nothing of the great positive work of the Colonial Service when every African leader known to me had deeply respected friends in that service. Robert Gardiner, that great Ghanaian, who was head of the Economic Commission for Africa and, incidentally, the only man who made the UN operation in the Congo work, told a seminar of young African diplomats that Britain had brought one great and priceless gift to Africa, the rule of law. "Did they really regret the rule of the witch doctor?", he asked.
My proposal is that Her Majesty's Government should use the conference not only to renew the commitment of the Commonwealth to making the UN work and to all its many virtuous intentions, but should also announce a number of millennium scholarships and fellowships. I submit that we do not need a building; we need to build a new Commonwealth generation—and we can do that with scholarships. People may ask, "What is in it for us?" What is in it is membership of an immensely powerful, special and valuable family of friends in the UN and elsewhere—a group that is unique.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my contribution will consist of two broad questions, both of which concern democracy and the observance of human rights in two countries: the Republic of Cameroon, which is the second newest Commonwealth member, and Nigeria, which has been suspended from the Commonwealth but is still very much on the agenda. When the Republic of Cameroon joined the Commonwealth it was hoped that the observance of human rights in that country would improve because it would be under an obligation to adhere to the principles of the Harare Declaration and would be more open to scrutiny. The regime of President Paul Biya has been the subject of strong criticism by opposition parties in Cameroon and human rights groups inside and outside the country. They say in effect that the regime remains in power through election-rigging, interference with press freedom and coercive use of the police and armed forces.
The British Council is to be congratulated on taking the initiative in organising the training of electoral observers in Cameroon. There are about 2, 000 of them.

1179
Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us a little about this operation. However, the electoral fraud that has bedevilled recent elections in Cameroon, the presidential elections in 1992 and the local elections last year, has occurred before the poll has taken place, at the level of electoral registration. Evidence has been presented by the committee for human rights in Cameroon and the opposition parties which shows that in areas that are known to favour the government party registration lists roughly equate to the adult population resident in those areas—and sometimes greatly exceed it—while in areas that are known to favour opposition parties often there has been considerable under-registration.
Officially, registration lists were open for most of last year. Registration officers from the electoral commission, despite the lists being "open", have been reported arriving unannounced and leaving villages and towns after only a few hours. In many districts there is not a permanent office for registration and no effort is made to inform the population on what day and time the officer will arrive. When the deficit in registration is pointed out, often the official answer is that the electorate has been busy on farms and cannot be contacted. Divisional electoral commissions are supposed to have representatives from all parties, but they have often been formed without opposition representation so that registration is carried out without accountability. Although polling and vote counting could be handled well and come up to the standards of international and other observers, some of the electorate might well be disfranchised and unable to take part.
There are other ways in which an authoritarian regime can swing elections in its favour. There may be obstruction of freedom of assembly. It is not usually a total ban because that is too obvious. There may be control of the media, which is a common method. There is evidence that both methods are used in Cameroon as elsewhere in many countries both in the Commonwealth and outside it where democracy is a new concept or is under threat. The recent election in The Gambia rather falls into this category. These are the more subtle ways of swinging electoral results other than the actual falsification of ballot papers or the deliberate miscounting of them. They are rather more difficult to detect and record but by no means impossible if the will is there. However, the Commonwealth must be made aware of these anti-democratic practices and take action to end them.
Apart from the information that must be being gathered by the High Commission, I ask the noble Baroness what monitoring of the pre-election phase in Cameroon is taking place. Does CMAG (Commonwealth Ministers Action Group) have the resources to do this? If not, should it not be a priority for the near future? The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, wondered whether CMAG should have greater resources.
Legislative elections in Cameroon are due in March and presidential elections in October of this year. In the absence of a CMAG monitoring group, can the noble Baroness say what efforts our High Commissioner is making to collect information on these worrying
1180
anti-democratic activities in the pre-election phase? For instance, can she say whether the Government will make the Cameroon Government aware of their concerns if they find these malpractice going on? Will the question of political freedom and electoral malpractice in Cameroon and elsewhere be raised at the Edinburgh meeting with which this debate is concerned?
I should also like to touch on the situation in Nigeria. What I have already said about Cameroon is relevant to Nigeria as General Abacha moves towards his stated aim of transition to civilian rule. I should like to take this opportunity to raise the case of Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, a distinguished Nigerian doctor, who has been detained since August 1995 following a trial which was as much a travesty of justice as that of Ken Sara Wiwa in Ogoniland. According to the latest information I have, he is not well and is held in solitary confinement in Katsina in the far north of Nigeria, 500 miles from his family, only one of whom is allowed to visit him for one hour per month. His daughter Morenike wrote to me after I raised his case in a Written Question about six months ago. In answer to my suggestion that General Abacha did not seem to take much notice of the British Government, she says:
"Contrary to your impression, I must say that the British Government does have a lot of effect on the Abacha regime. This regime is very 'conscious' of the influence that the British Government can have on the European Union and the United States of America. These power blocks look to the British Government for guidance on this issue because of what they perceive to be its understanding and familiarity with the Nigerian socio-political environment [by virtue of Nigeria's former colonial status]".
I ask the noble Baroness to do all in her power to achieve the release of this distinguished political prisoner, whose health is declining in custody, or at the very least press for him to be transferred to Lagos where his family can visit him more easily. But he is only one of many in a similar situation. I have a list of 87 names, some of whom are very distinguished people. I am sure that they are by no means the total number of political prisoners in custody in Nigeria. Surely, their release must be a necessary pre-condition for any moves towards the rehabilitation of Nigeria within the Commonwealth.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for choosing this moment to raise this very important subject. I had the privilege of being chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 1986. For two years thereafter, between 1986 and 1988, I had the privilege of being the first Speaker of the United Kingdom Parliament to be chairman of the Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers. I took the opportunity to visit as many Commonwealth countries as possible, particularly the smaller countries.
I shall spare your Lordships' blushes tonight by not recounting my introduction to the Parliament of Vanuatu in pidgin English. It was in our terms slightly unparliamentary. However, I vividly remember going to church on a Sunday while I was there. I found myself on my knees praying to "Big fella him live along topside". One of the glories of the Commonwealth is

1181
that at meetings the "little fellas" have a voice that is equal to that of the "big fellas". No doubt that will be so in Edinburgh next October.
In my brief contribution this evening I want to pay tribute to the Commonwealth NGOs and to concentrate on one of the "little fellas". The Commonwealth community is by no means just a matter of government and politics, though it is true that our mother of parliaments is the lodestone of theirs. Many non-governmental organisations spread a wide variety of professional, caring and educational skills which can be said to provide the glue necessary to hold the Commonwealth peoples together.
A shining example of this is the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League based in London. It is only one of many, of course. I had the privilege, as some of your Lordships may know, of serving in the old imperial Indian Army for some 5 years, in the 19th King George V's Own Lancers. I owed my seat in Parliament to my declining command of Urdu. The contribution of that army can never be overstated: over 2 million men and women under arms and everyone a volunteer. But let us not forget the contributions and the bravery of the troops from other parts of the Commonwealth: from Africa (West, East and South), from the Caribbean, from islands such as Fiji and many other smaller dependencies.
I was fortunate in July to be given a slot on "The Week's Good Cause" in support of the AUK appeal to raise money for the veterans of the old imperial armies of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, many of them today in grave distress and poverty. I was told that £10, 000 is the average to be raised by "The Week's Good Cause". I am pleased to tell your Lordships that to date the amount is over £82, 000. According to the BBC that is the second largest amount that has ever been raised through "The Week's Good Cause". I mention that only because it is a tremendous tribute to the fact that the contribution of these servicemen and women has not been forgotten 50 years on. The fund is managed by the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League, a very small NGO with a staff of only four in London but with representatives in 53 countries of the Commonwealth around the world to ensure that support and help is given to those most in need. I am glad to say they will be represented in Edinburgh in October.
The theme of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference is to be trade and investment development and the road to prosperity. I often reflect that in our obsession with Europe we have tended to forget and to neglect the great asset and the opportunities we have as members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is as diverse as the United Nations but it is united in a common bond of language—as has already been mentioned—of parliamentary institutions, of friendship and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has mentioned, the Crown. It was always a matter of great pride to me that the toast of all the conferences I attended when I was chairman of the Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers was Her Majesty the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth.
1182
The Commonwealth is growing in size, as we have heard. Pakistan has returned to the fold. It is a great thrill to have South Africa back in the Commonwealth, as well as Mozambique and the Cameroons. I must tell your Lordships that when I was in Speaker's House, the Ambassador from Mozambique came to see me to ask if it would be possible for his country to join the Commonwealth. I had to say to him then that it was bad luck because he really ought to go and see the Portuguese and not us. But it is a pleasure to find in 1995 that they are in the Commonwealth. Angola, of course, is knocking on the door. It is, as I have said, an underestimated asset and I hope that the forthcoming conference will focus attention upon the importance of the Commonwealth as we enter the new millennium.
I end with a little story which I was told by the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament, John Fraser, at the last Commonwealth Speakers' Conference I attended. It was a true story of nature about geese—some of your Lordships may know it. He said that when a flock of geese take to the air they fly in formation because the uplift of the wings of the flock helps all the geese to progress. Furthermore, if one of the geese gets out of formation it is honked back into position. The lead goose changes from time to time. If a goose happens to fall to the ground for any reason, two other geese go down to see if they can help it. The importance of the story, of course, is that the flock reaches its destination in unity and in safety. I commend that story to your Lordships. It is a little tale which may have equal relevance to our membership of the European Union.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, it would be a fine thing to report that democracy and liberty flourished throughout the Commonwealth. But several Commonwealth countries do have endemic human rights problems built into undemocratic systems, yet they remain members in good standing, enjoying the numerous and important benefits which membership brings.
The state of press freedom provides a useful litmus test for assessing a country's respect for human rights in general. The press is always among the first targets when power begins to corrupt. One organisation that is fighting to ensure that press freedom and human rights gain higher priority on the Commonwealth agenda is the Commonwealth Press Union. It represents 700 publishing groups, newspapers and news agencies from 47 Commonwealth countries and deserves support for helping to ensure that the Commonwealth adheres more closely to its fundamental principles.
My family has long supported press freedom in the Commonwealth. The Astor Award, inaugurated by my father, is presented at the biennial conferences of the Commonwealth Press Union and recognises services to a free press and the newspaper industry in the Commonwealth. Its most recent recipient is Fred M'membe, publisher and editor of the Post, one of the few privately owned publications in Zambia. He was presented with the award at the CPU conference in Cape Town last October. Far from warmly applauding its citizen for being so honoured, the Zambian Government

1183
launched a most extraordinary attack on Mr. M'membe. So extreme and hysterical was this that the CPU feared for his well-being and took steps to ensure he could return home in reasonable safety. Two days ago, this last Monday, Mr. M'membe appeared in the High Court in Lusaka to face charges under the State Security Act. His alleged offence against this Orwellian law was to report that the government was considering holding a referendum on proposed constitutional changes. If convicted, he may be jailed for up to 25 years.
It is bad enough that a journalist should be charged with publishing a report on an issue of such obvious public interest, particularly as the government had called for a public debate on a new constitution. What makes Mr. M'membe's situation so much worse is that the charges he faced on Monday are only the beginning of his legal nightmare. He and his colleagues face more than 50 other charges, including one for reporting that a former minister said, in court, that President Chiluba was a "twit".
Mr. M'membe and two colleagues were condemned by the Speaker of the Zambian Parliament to be detained, indefinitely, for contempt for reporting a statement—made in parliament—which was critical of the government. The three were released from a maximum security prison after 23 days only on the orders of the Supreme Court. The campaign against Mr. M'membe is not confined to the courts. Editions of the paper have been banned. He and his staff are monitored by the secret police and have been threatened by gangs. Trucks carrying his newspapers have been hijacked and their contents destroyed. And all this by a government who claimed, just six years ago, that they were introducing democracy to a country which had suffered for decades under one-party rule.
Zambia is one of the poorest countries in Africa. It needs political and economic freedoms to pull itself out of its terrible situation. It needs friends. It needs the Commonwealth. But police brutality, corruption and abuses of power seem to be all the government can offer its people. The administration's only response to newspaper reports about its shortcomings is to attack the messenger. Zambia is not alone in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, touched on Cameroon. As Nigeria was being shown the door in 1995 in Auckland, Cameroon was being ushered in. This expansion of the Commonwealth is certainly a good thing. Cameroon is a most welcome addition to the family but it must learn to follow the democratic ways the Commonwealth is increasingly seeking to pursue. One of the Cameroonian delegates to the CPU's conference was Pius Njawa publisher of the independently-owned Le Messager Group. Mr. Njawa is one of West Africa's most distinguished newspapermen. On returning to Cameroon from Cape Town—from a meeting which spent much time considering press freedom and human rights—he was sentenced to six months in prison for "insulting the President" by reporting proposed constitutional changes. Mr. Njawa was held in appalling conditions and denied medical treatment for a serious diabetic condition, despite repeated pleas by his doctor. Eventually, after
1184
international protest, he was freed. But he and his colleagues still face legal action from a government unable to accept any criticism.
Zambia and Cameroon might feel aggrieved at being singled out. Offenders against the freedom of the press also include Kenya, Sierra Leone, Ghana and The Gambia in Africa and Papua New Guinea and Tonga in the Pacific—united by their governments' disregard for democratic practice; each in serious need of help the Commonwealth can deliver; each trying to hide chronic failings by attacking its small independent press. And that is the heart of the matter. The development of democratic government throughout the Commonwealth requires the establishment of media which can operate in a tolerant and legally secure environment.
The Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is a splendid opportunity for the United Kingdom to propose ways to strengthen adherence to the Harare Declaration's commitment to democratic government. One vital element of this will be to provide tangible support to NGOs such as the CPU, to enable them more fully to monitor human rights abuses, campaign against them and develop practical programmes to enhance the work of fledgling democratic institutions such as the press.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, as one who has espoused the Commonwealth cause for many years and has always stressed the importance of the Commonwealth to Britain, I believe that the message is at last beginning to get home in this country. It is interesting to see how many people are starting to appreciate that in the Commonwealth we have a priceless asset. Perhaps the most significant development was the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of another place published 10 months ago—an excellent report which brought out clearly both the importance of the Commonwealth to Britain and the valuable contribution made by the Commonwealth in international affairs.
I fear that the FCO may still have some way to go. Four years ago I pointed out to the then Secretary of State that the departmental report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—please note the last part of the title—contained no reference to the Commonwealth in the statement of objectives of British diplomatic policy. That was happily rectified in the 1993 report. I was therefore astonished to find, in the FCO's 1996 report, once again no reference to the Commonwealth in the statement of the aims of British diplomatic policy. I hope that the Minister, who is a good friend of the Commonwealth, can give a firm undertaking that there will in future be a proper reference to the Commonwealth in the objectives of British diplomatic policy.
Generally, however, the change of attitude towards the Commonwealth by Her Majesty's Government is encouraging; the Prime Minister has been outstanding in his support. The FCO is gradually accepting that while Europe is of fundamental importance to Britain, the focus of power is shifting to a great wide world outside

1185
Europe and that in that world Britain occupies a unique position through its membership of the Commonwealth. It is a far cry from the days when Britain was at bay on Rhodesia and South Africa and the Commonwealth was a dirty word both with HMG and in the British press. Today things are very different. Indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is tomorrow giving a reception to mark the UK Year of the Commonwealth. So the timing of this debate could not be better. We are much indebted to the noble Viscount for having initiated the debate and for having given such an excellent overview.
With the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting being held in Edinburgh later this year, it is right that we should consider where Britain stands in relation to the Commonwealth and how the Commonwealth stands in relation to the world. There can be no more appropriate venue for the meeting than Edinburgh since so many Scots have made such outstanding contributions to the history and development of the Commonwealth. The Royal Commonwealth Society deserves enormous credit for having designated 1997 as the UK Year of the Commonwealth, and it is splendid that the Secretary of State will be endorsing it in such a special way tomorrow. As a result of the Royal Commonwealth Society's initiative, many organisations throughout the country are holding Commonwealth occasions. No effort is being spared to drive home the Commonwealth message.
In a short debate it is possible to make only a few points. I should like to express just three—two about Britain and the Commonwealth and the third about the international role of the Commonwealth. For some years it has been clear that the British themselves do not today properly understand the new Commonwealth nor our role in it. There is still too much nostalgia about a lost empire and a failure to comprehend the new Commonwealth of 53 independent nations. Far from regretting our lost empire, we should pride ourselves on being the first country in history to have successfully devolved its empire into a unique organisation of independent states.
Educating people in this country about the Commonwealth must begin in the schools. The Commonwealth Institute and the Royal Commonwealth Society have given a splendid lead. The Commonwealth Institute will be running student CHOGMs throughout the country prior to the CHOGM itself in October. A notable recent advance has been the very welcome decision of the Education and Employment Secretary to include the Commonwealth in the history curriculum for 11 to 14 year-olds.
With the CHOGM being held in Britain, there is a wonderful opportunity to spread understanding about the Commonwealth in our schools. The Joint Commonwealth Societies Council will be issuing a first-class brochure to schools for Commonwealth Day on 10th March. We cannot expect Britain to play her vital role in the Commonwealth if our people do not understand its importance to us.
1186
Here I pay a tribute to the British Council and to the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. The British Council is represented in 30 Commonwealth countries and is now playing a major part in disseminating information not only about Britain but also about the values, institutions and cultures which we all share in the Commonwealth. The Council for Education in the Commonwealth plays an invaluable part in strengthening the ties which bind the Commonwealth through our educational systems which have so much in common. The Commission on Commonwealth Studies, under the chairmanship of the distinguished Canadian professor, Tom Symons, recently produced a compelling report drawing attention to the importance of Commonwealth studies in higher education. Indeed, I wish to endorse most warmly what the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said about the invaluable work being done by the NGOs.
My second point concerns the importance of the Commonwealth to Britain in terms of trade. The centre of gravity of the world's economy is shifting in Asia's direction. This will give Britain wonderful opportunities through its Commonwealth connections and the world-wide use of the English language. Some years ago a Commonwealth conference took place at Cumberland Lodge under the chairmanship of an outstanding Indian businessman, Madhu Patwardhau, who sadly died last year. He emphasised to the conference the tremendous opportunities for Britain which were opening up in India and the Far East. It has taken a few years for the penny to drop, but it was very heartening to see the Prime Minister recently leading a delegation of British businessmen to India. We must seize these opportunities while we can still be first in the field.
In this connection, perhaps I may say how delighted I am that we are to have a new "Britannia". I believe that I was the first in your Lordships' House to deplore the over-hasty decision to decommission "Britannia" before a replacement was in sight. Now we have the welcome decision to build a new Royal Yacht and the gap will be only five years. I have had the privilege of experiencing personally the enormous value "Britannia" has in the promotion of British trade both in the Commonwealth where the Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, always receives a wonderful welcome and in other countries. "Britannia" sailing up the Delaware River to disembark the Queen at Penn's Landing in the heart of Philadelphia as a tribute to the United States of America in its bicentennial year brought Britain enormous prestige in the USA—something that no other country could match.
My third point is to underline the part the Commonwealth can play in conflict resolution, not usurping the role of the United Nations, but taking advantage of a world-wide network of bilateral and regional contacts to defuse situations before they reach the stage where UN action may be required. A notable recent example was the part played by International Alert, which is based in London, in bringing about an agreement between the government and the rebels in Sierra Leone. We shall be holding a Commonwealth conference on conflict resolution at Cumberland Lodge

1187
in July. I hope that we shall be able to play a small part in identifying some of the issues for the CHOGM later this year.
I trust that the holding of the CHOGM in Britain and the designation of 1997 as the UK Year of the Commonwealth really will mark the beginning of a new understanding in this country of the significance of the Commonwealth.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords present will be regarded as geese in the sense described by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill; we are all anxious to move together in the same direction. We all support the objects of the Commonwealth. I should like briefly to endorse two points. The first was made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. It was the central importance for any healthy policy in the Commonwealth of a free press. During my service in the field I experienced abuse of freedom of the press in disgraceful circumstances. I do not believe that one can exaggerate the importance of the role of a free press.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Moore, I was surprised by what is, I hope, a drafting lapse in the report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. One hesitates to make references to the internal machinery, but as one who has been in the bowels of the department I noticed that in the extraordinarily interesting and valuable report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the other place there was among its 64 recommendations and comments, which were mostly positive, a fairly strong suggestion that the time might have come for some kind of structural or other changes to emphasise the Commonwealth and the work of the FCO. I do not express a view about that; it is an internal matter. I am sure that the lapse will be rectified.
It has rightly been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that the Commonwealth is, in effect, a new creature. It has changed so much. One of the features of the world today is that networking is taking over from structures and hierarchies in the business world and everywhere. Decisions are reached by consensus and team working rather than by top-down hierarchies. The Commonwealth is a great international network which has evolved from old and rigid structures of control with millions of personal links as its lubrication. It supplements and in no way supplants formal connections. The old dichotomy about which we heard so much when we joined the EC was completely false. But it still rears its ugly head a little.
It has never been easy to obtain a clear perspective of what Commonwealth relations really amount to. That is partly because by far the greater part of the day-to-day work between Commonwealth countries is bilateral, as indeed it is in relation to foreign countries—protecting British interests in each of the 53 countries of the Commonwealth and promoting trade.
But certainly before 1965, the Commonwealth Office, with the ODA, was responsible for organising all the principal matters involving the Commonwealth states collectively. As I recall it, the work did not take up a
1188
great deal of time and effort. It involved co-ordinating Commonwealth agencies at the time and arranging ministerial meetings, especially Heads of Government meetings. I was a humble secretary myself at the first Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting in 1948, the first one at which there were more than five Prime Ministers present. There were only eight but they all represented substantial countries.
When, in 1965, the responsibility for manning the collective projects passed to the Commonwealth Secretariat, a long process of build-up started. In my view, it achieved fulfilment only when the present Secretary General took over. Before that there was not really quite the required combination of administrative capacity with diplomatic experience at the top. But the secretariat has now come into its own as a powerful organising and innovating force and its work is remarkably cost-effective.
By nature, it is essentially a catalyst but it performs a growing range of tasks at the instance of its member governments, latterly moving increasingly, as has been said, into the area of actively promoting good governance. It has a delicate and sensitive role which the secretariat is qualified to perform well. It works on what, in terms of national budgets, can only be described as a shoestring. In turn, its work is supplemented by that of the extremely valuable Commonwealth Foundation with regard to NGOs and the professional field.
After the first 20 years, as with most other organisations, there was scope for restructuring the Commonwealth Secretariat. This was encouraged by a drastic financial squeeze in 1991, with a budget cut of 20 per cent. in real terms over the succeeding four years and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, a 16 per cent. reduction in staff.
Since then, the work has increased steadily at the request of Heads of Government meetings. The Minister has probably already started the ball rolling—I have no knowledge on the subject—to arrange for a greater vote, a significant increase in the budget of the Commonwealth Secretariat at Edinburgh. I have no doubt in my mind that that money could not be better spent.
6.34 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, any noble Lord who inspects the Great Seal of the Realm will find an extraordinary symbol. Historically, there is always shown on the front, the obverse, a representation of the sovereign crowned and enthroned and on the reverse there is the sovereign as a military or strategic leader on horseback in military uniform.
Since the Attlee Government persuaded the rest of the Commonwealth to accept and welcome India's independence as a republic, while India accepted and recognised the British sovereign as "Head of the Commonwealth", the seal has been reversed. This means that the former reverse is as legitimate as the former obverse so that the Great Seal of the Realm now shows the sovereign as a military or strategic leader—and perhaps strategic is the better word—something to which any Commonwealth republic can adhere.

1189
The inscription around that figure is a Latin aphorism attributed to the late Lord Butler. It is supposed to be a Latinisation of the term "Commonwealth". It reads Consortionis Populorum Princeps, which might literally be translated as "Head of the Gathering of the Peoples".
With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, here was no Whitehall endeavour to define the meaning, purpose and variety of the Commonwealth. Implicit is a concise and simple statement that Commonwealth countries still have a strategic common interest in the defence of their standards.
Symbolically, on the very day that the sovereign was anointed, the world's highest peak, Mount Everest, was itself scaled. Its name in Tibetan, I am told, is Chomo Lungma, which means "Mother of the World".
Since those heady days of the Attlee Government we have seen some frightening changes. South Africa was driven out and has been welcomed back in. Other states—Cameroon, Namibia and more recently Mozambique—have joined from the outside. If I am correct in my interpretation of an off-the-cuff reply to a supplementary at Question Time some months ago, when a country joins the Commonwealth it makes a statement of acceptance of the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. I have given notice of this question to my noble friend. When she winds up the debate, perhaps she will tell the House whether indeed there is a common form in which that declaration is required or how it is done. Also, perhaps my noble friend will tell the House how many countries seem to be thinking of applying to join the Commonwealth, because when my researcher rang the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a day or two ago, the answer was, "We have lost count".
There is a telling and perhaps rather prophetic phrase buried in the Harare Declaration to which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred so enthusiastically. I wish I could share his enthusiasm for that declaration. I am afraid that I find that it is verbose, prolix and complex, compared only, perhaps, with the 39 Articles of the Church of England. It is complex to a degree and, in my view, it made the mistake of trying to define something of the Commonwealth's constitution. I believe that that is a mistake and really goes against the grain of what the Commonwealth had been growing up to do.
The question which stands out at the moment is: just what is a country joining when it joins the Commonwealth? For all its rhetoric, the Harare Declaration is of little help and in any event it has been ignored by some rather high-handed action recently, not least by the President of Pakistan in his abrupt dismissal of the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
The Harare Declaration runs to nearly 20, 000 words and covers all sorts of matters—"global change and economic development", "reforms in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union", investment funds, capital markets and so on. Fashionably, and no doubt inevitably, the environment had to be squeezed in somehow along with natural disasters and alongside "sustainable tropical forestry" to say nothing of "women and structural adjustment". Few indeed of the great
1190
themes that today are fashionable in the media and the press were not addressed. They were dismissed in most cases with a trite little comment that,
"Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment", and so on.
There are now, it is said, so many other countries, without any previous connection with the British system, queuing up for admission that, as I said before, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told my researcher that it had lost count. Of course, any accomplished Whitehall draftsman could put together a paragraph or two about representative government, civil rights and what have you; but seriously to boil down the common interests that Commonwealth countries do share to a meaningful focus, has so far defied the best brains. As a matter of fact, I thought that my noble friend Lady Park came near to it when she called the Commonwealth,
"a world within the world".
I was also much impressed by the comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, regarding the way that a flock of geese manage their flights. Perhaps there is something there for us to consider. At any rate, we need to refine the idea of the Commonwealth and turn it into something politically meaningful. That will not be easy. I suggest that it would have to be a good deal more meaningful than the current talk about the European Union, with all its formalist, centralist Roman law flavour and traditions. It will not be easy to boil down the Commonwealth's essential value and meaning to a phrase, let alone anything as good as that attributed to the late Lord Butler.
Worldwide, much is being done under the influence of the United States' power and rhetoric, nominally authorised through votes in the Security Council; but, in fact, endeavouring—as we have seen with Somalia and, again, in the Dayton Accords about Bosnia—to impose on persons and societies of very different origins today's version of the key principles of justice and self-government for which, in the 17th century, the Pilgrim Fathers, drawing on the Magna Carta, set about founding what we now know as the United States.
It may be that in a world bedazzled, if not be-drugged, by talk of the European "Union"—indeed, almost obsessed by that discussion—other associations between national states, including the UN, are all, as one might say, talked about as of something quite familiar. But, in such a world, surely we need a new idea for the Commonwealth. If we are looking for a sort of regimental cap badge and motto, the allegory of the flying geese is not a bad one. However, as I said, I was greatly impressed by my noble friend's description of the Commonwealth as,
"a world within the world".
In the Commonwealth we have a global grouping of nations with much common history and, in two world wars, much common sacrifice. There are great interlockings of interests, straddling strong regional concerns—whether in the Atlantic, the Pacific, South-East Asia or the Mediterranean. In each there has yet to be identified a realistic thread of common interest in both political and strategic terms. This must be seen

1191
to transcend—if not also, in some sense, to subsume—the many vortices and conflicts—for example in Cyprus, that between Hellenistic nationalism on the one hand and, on the other, the geopolitics of Central Asia.
However, whether we can devise a system and a theme which can embrace the many conflicts which a worldwide Commonwealth is bound to some extent and at some point to be embroiled in and touched by, remains to be seen. It calls for the vigour of a seer and its realisation requires the work of a giant—it is a task for giants.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this debate because I am a son of the Commonwealth. I was brought up in colonial Southern Rhodesia and left after UDI in 1965. Subsequent to independence in 1980, I returned to live in Zimbabwe for four years. That country owes the Commonwealth a great debt of gratitude for helping end its dreadful civil war.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I wish to express my admiration for the skill and energy that Chief Anyaoku has shown as Commonwealth Secretary-General for the past seven years. In 1980, when he was Commonwealth Deputy Secretary-General, I was fortunate enough to have some dealings with him. They concerned a matter in Rhodesia during the interim period while the late Lord Soames was Governor. I found Chief Anyaoku very kind, and his advice and help were outstandingly effective.
This evening's debate concerns the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The theme in Edinburgh—originally proposed by the British Prime Minister—is, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said:
"Trade, Investment and Development: The Road to Commonwealth Prosperity".
The starting point of discussing Edinburgh must be the key report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, cited by the noble Lords, Lord Moore of Wolvercote and Lord Thurlow, entitled The Future Role of the Commonwealth which was published on 27th March 1996.
The report stresses that the Commonwealth contains some of the world's fastest growing markets. It emphasises Singapore, where income per head is one-fifth higher than in the United Kingdom, and Malaysia, which is fast catching up. Both countries were mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in his opening remarks. Figures quoted in the report show that in 1994 United Kingdom exports to the Commonwealth were worth £14 billion, just over 10 per cent. of the global total. Moreover, while the UK in 1994 had a substantial overall deficit in goods and services, its goods exported to the Commonwealth exceeded the value of its imports by £360 million.
In a notable speech to the Confederation of Indian Industry in Calcutta on 9th January of this year, the
1192
British Prime Minister explained the importance of trade with India. He said:
"We already conduct a vast amount of trade together and the volume is increasing steadily. In the last four years our trade has almost doubled to 3.5 billion pounds sterling every year".
The Prime Minister continued:
"Now that is a remarkable achievement, but remarkable though that is, I am convinced that we can still do far more, both in trade and in mutual investment".
Another market which must be mentioned is South Africa, now happily back in the Commonwealth. It is full of future possibilities. The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee highlights how a combination of the English language, similar legal structures, a common business culture and educational links assists trade and investment within the Commonwealth. In his oral evidence to the committee, Chief Anyaoku said:
"When a businessman or businesswoman from one Commonwealth country goes to another Commonwealth country, he or she fits in quite readily [and] understands the concepts".
With the benefit of those links and the Asian and potential South African markets, the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded:
"The old Commonwealth ties could therefore become for the United Kingdom, the new Commonwealth opportunities".
One especially important feature of the Commonwealth is the annual Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have found this to be the right forum to launch initiatives on international debt—a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. Thus, in 1990 the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Trinidad Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting, proposed a formula on debt that has come to be known as the "Trinidad Terms" and has become an accepted international approach to dealing with debt.
The current Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Malta Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting in 1994 proposed that repayment terms on some concessional loans from the IMF be eased. His plan has been backed by his fellow Commonwealth Finance Ministers at subsequent meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, as the Commonwealth Secretary-General stresses in his new year statement for 1997.
At paragraph 70, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee strongly recommends similar regular meetings of Commonwealth Trade Ministers. I give my wholehearted support to this suggestion. Surprisingly, at the moment there is no forum where Commonwealth Trade Ministers can exchange ideas. At such a meeting, Trade Ministers could discuss practical ways of increasing and promoting trade among Commonwealth countries. They could discuss trade by country or by sector—for example, information technology or commodities. The meeting would give an opportunity for bilateral trade talks outside the formal sessions. Ministers could discuss multilateral trade issues which lie before the World Trade Organisation. The Trade Ministers, when they reached consensus, could go to the World Trade Organisation as an important bloc.

1193
Britain has found the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meetings of great use. As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said, similar meetings of Trade Ministers,
"could become an important vehicle for the United Kingdom to encourage free trade".
If there is one particular monument to the work of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Edinburgh that I should like to see, it would be regular meetings of Commonwealth Trade Ministers. I very much hope that the British Prime Minister will take the initiative and launch the idea at Edinburgh, and I should be most grateful this evening if the Minister would give an indication of the current government thinking on this subject.
I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the Commonwealth. It does not hold the solution to all the international problems of Britain or of any other country. However, the tendency is usually the other way—to underrate the Commonwealth.
I shall give an example. The Commonwealth Secretary-General has described the highly positive report of the Foreign Affairs Committee as,
"a judgment that we had not heard from a parliamentary body for years".
Upon publication of the report, the Foreign Secretary formally responded to it as "a fresh impetus" in Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth, and spoke of "significant initiatives" on the part of the British Government to enhance the Commonwealth's contribution to international issues.
The report and the Foreign Secretary's reaction, both important news events, received the grand total of one commentary and one short article in all the British national broadsheet newspapers, while the tabloids said nothing at all.
We should neither underestimate nor exaggerate the importance of the Commonwealth. I think it accurate to describe the Commonwealth as a distinctly useful body. Let us be sure to make the very best use of it at Edinburgh and beyond.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Commonwealth is alive and well. We are not lining up to defend it from any adversaries because there is none, but, as the previous speaker said, it needs more definition and public recognition.
As we have heard, the Government Action Programme agreed at Millbrook in November 1995 took the Commonwealth more deeply into three basic commitments arising from the Harare Declaration. I have read through much of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report—as others have said, a milestone in Commonwealth affairs—and conclude that the Millbrook plan, coming so soon after political change in South Africa, marked a decisive change in our Government's perception of the Commonwealth.
In simple terms, I believe that the Commonwealth under Chief Anyaoku is a far more equal and dynamic association than it has ever been. It used to be said that
1194
the Commonwealth depended on Britain. But it is now also true, contrary to public perception, that Britain needs the Commonwealth for its own guidance in foreign affairs.
Half a century ago my father was speaking for the Commonwealth, in another place but in this very Chamber, saying how foolish we would be to desert our colonies in favour of the Common Market. I do not agree with his conclusion but the question remains. In our obsession with European integration, are we neglecting an opportunity to do more with the Commonwealth? Are we genuinely going forward as an equal partner of an association which has an international purpose well beyond Europe?
South Africa is a useful case study. I well remember the critical role of the Eminent Persons Group 10 years ago on sanctions against South Africa and the way a consensus was finally achieved against the grain of Conservative Party thinking. The Commonwealth, alongside many active churches, organisations, pressure groups and individuals, saved our Government's face and saved Britain's face. Mother of Parliaments we may be, but we can also be Mother Goose, with due deference to the former Speaker, my convener, who sits beside me. We are no longer in a position, if we ever were, to moralise to the Commonwealth about its human rights, race relations and even its democracy. Whatever our government, Britain's policy towards asylum-seekers and immigrants will be judged by Commonwealth standards as well as our own, as we may judge, under Commonwealth auspices, the admittedly sorry state of press freedom in Zambia or India's prisons. Let us not forget that we have Commonwealth citizens languishing in our own prisons, detained without any charge.
I was encouraged to read the Prime Minister's speech to the Commonwealth Institute recently in which he quoted Iain Macleod on the brotherhood of man and said that acts of racial discrimination were,
"utterly repugnant in a civilised society".
We may believe that we are civilised but we need to go one further than that and believe that we can learn from civilisation in other countries as well as our own.
All parties, I hope, now accept that the Commonwealth has become one of the three pillars of our foreign policy, along with the European Union and NATO. I regard the UN as more arch than column. We have heard how important the Commonwealth is to our trade, including the important safeguards for the smaller states under the Lome Convention, our aid, and debt relief for the poorest countries. We all know how much is done by the British Council for education and training despite the unequal cost of our universities for overseas students. The Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, among others, has an excellent track record and Britain can take at least one-third of the credit for that.
I was pleased to see the confident tone of the Foreign Secretary in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and to learn that in future the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have,
"separate, self-standing objectives on the Commonwealth".

1195
Yet it was interesting to read that the FCO devotes significantly less time to the Commonwealth than to the European Union with only 87 out of 3, 500 staff. I hope that the Minister will comment on that level of interest because it may be that limited success has been achieved with relatively fewer resources and that the Commonwealth now deserves more attention, especially as we are giving it a higher priority.
Through Millbrook, Britain has a new commitment to pursue human rights and development programmes in tandem, to alleviate poverty through a combination of social and economic initiatives including those which are directed towards the poorest communities.
One of the most exciting developments is the spread of Commonwealth NGOs, or CONGOs. Among them are CONGOSA, which is specifically designed for South Africa and Mozambique, and COMMACT, the Commonwealth Association for Local Action and Economic Development, which recently organised a series of conferences in South Africa to bring skills and services into local communities which might never have access to the mainstream economy.
I well remember during the South African elections being taken to one of the poorest areas of Kwazulu/Natal to see the work of a very effective NGO called the Philisizwe Association. Its essential purpose was to spread skills in rural crafts and small-scale agriculture, but it had been diverted into the more pressing requirements of the election in an area where the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party were in sometimes mortal conflict.
The problems of rural poverty in Kwazulu/Natal remain; they deserve urgent attention. I was delighted to learn that the same association is on the list of active South African NGOs engaged in small business development, benefiting from contact with a range of Commonwealth sources of funding and technical aid. That is the front line of Commonwealth development, where human rights and economic enterprise go hand in hand and can achieve so much at grassroots level—at least where the semi-arid soil allows those grass roots to grow.
At a higher level the Edinburgh meeting will certainly review the work of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, now based in New Delhi, on such issues as child labour legislation or Hong Kong's stateless citizens. I hope that noble Lords will see the CHRI as an enterprise worth supporting, not as an attack on any individual state. I was relieved that the Minister was able to salvage the cuts in the bilateral aid programme. However, perhaps she will say whether she agrees that the figure of 12 per cent. devoted to basic needs excluding emergencies is still too low.
Noble Lords have mentioned the sorry case of Nigeria, at the diplomatic end of human rights initiatives. I urge further action at the highest possible level, and quote a telling phrase from the writer, Wole Soyinka, on nationhood. He says:
"A nation is a collective enterprise; outside of that, it is mostly a gambling space for the opportunism and adventurism of power".
1196
Soyinka says that nationhood is frustrated by,
"the refusal of a section—be this understood in terms of class, ethnic groupings, profession or religion—to grant others the simple right of participation in the process of deciding a collective destiny".
This is a large subject, but I believe the debate helps to explain the underlying purpose of the Commonwealth and our support for the principle of consensus diplomacy which has had such good results in South Africa and elsewhere. It is to extend nationhood into a wider arena in which the varied experience of democratic achievement can be shared with practical advantage.
The empowerment of local communities in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world is not only what the Commonwealth stands for but what it can achieve more effectively on the ground than any institution, including the United Nations itself which does much to foster these relations. It has the political and economic muscle to further those aims in Edinburgh. I hope that the Government give its new initiatives the support they deserve.
7 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, when the president of Kenya, Mr. Daniel Arap Moi, recently called my noble friend on the Front Bench "that bossy woman", he paid her, although I am sure that he did not intend it, a very considerable compliment. With her justly deserved reputation for "telling it how it is" to certain world leaders, she has often reached the parts that more veiled and circumspect criticisms cannot reach.
I do not speak in this House very often. I therefore take this opportunity, possibly my last before the election, to pay a more straightforward tribute to my noble friend's tireless efforts to bring sense, calm and wise counsel to parts of the world where for too long East-West rivalry fostered a profligate and slightly "spoilt brat" attitude among many ruling elites. That rivalry is now over and a degree of realism prevails. Sadly, I suspect that my noble friend will not be occupying her customary slot on the Front Bench after the coming election. I say that not through any lack of faith in the ability of the present Government to prolong their tenure beyond 1st May, but because I have witnessed my noble friend's punishing schedule. Five hours of debate today is but a minor engagement along the way. I do not believe it would be reasonable for anyone to ask her to do another five years of the same. All of which, sadly, leads me to deduce that it is unlikely that my noble friend will be representing Britain at the Edinburgh conference in October. I therefore hope that today's debate will give her an opportunity to tell us a little of what she would have said had she attended the conference.
Like my noble friend Lady Park, my thoughts in these matters tend to turn to Africa, the continent that I know best. That continent has had a confusing year, with moves towards greater democratisation in some countries and increases in civil unrest and curtailment of civil liberties in others. From a Commonwealth perspective, only Sierra Leone has suffered a recent civil war, which mercifully now seems to be over. But Nigeria, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, told us, continues

1197
to detain its former presidents or presidents elect and quite a few other people. It remains suspended from the Commonwealth. Will it, should it, can it be readmitted?
Uganda seems a great success story, with a rising economy and satisfactory elections last year. However, I hope that President Museveni, who is, I believe, partly Rwandan, will resist the temptation to become too embroiled in the Rwanda muddle.
On the debit side, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, after his apparent transition from communist to capitalist, does not seem to appreciate that he has only got about as far as the Julius Nyerere school of African socialism and is talking like a recording from the 1960s about redistributing land from commercial farmers to inefficient subsistence smallholders. Everywhere else in Africa they are trying to reverse that process.
Violent crime worsens daily under the benign, but slightly ineffectual (at least in terms of law and order) Government in South Africa, and there are again to be heard the old jokes such as, "A patriotic South African is a man who can't sell his house". The new, rather cynical reply is, "If he waits long enough, he can claim on the insurance when it's stolen".
Outside African Commonwealth countries, but deeply affecting them, are other developments. Angola's civil war seems to be over and Liberia's also seems to have quietened down, although it is difficult to get much first-hand information. Most of us remain totally confused about the tragic genocide and refugee migrations of the African Lakes district; but even there a temporary peace seems to reign.
Everyone as usual seems to want to unseat Libya's Colonel Gadafi. However, he has survived another year and another coup attempt and even hired a well-known parliamentary lobbyist to demonstrate that he is really much nicer than we all thought even if he will not let balloonists cross the country.
Sudan's leadership continues its charm offensive in the West, but a rather nastier kind of offensive at home, with repercussions for its neighbours, including Uganda. I find myself wondering why it is that the Sudan was never a member of the Commonwealth. After all, it was run by the British political service for many years. I wonder, if countries are queuing up to join the Commonwealth, whether we could not bring some influence to bear on the Sudanese Government to clean up its act and bring Sudan into the Commonwealth.
The decaying President Mobutu still thinks that he rules Zaire, but nobody else is quite sure whether he, or indeed anyone at all, does. Mr. Algy Cluff, the well-known mining and oil man, recently described Zaire to me as the most comprehensively deregulated country in Africa. Rumour has it that it is finally proving a bit too deregulated even for him.
Those are a few of the matters about which I should be thinking if I were on my way to Edinburgh. Above all, I should be wanting to impress upon African leaders in particular that they no longer have a sponsor for bad behaviour—Uncle Ivan's wallet is empty (or perhaps I should say Uncle Boris's)—and that, if they want to improve the lot of their citizens, their countries must become magnets for foreign investment and attractive
1198
hosts for industries, whether high employment or high-tech. That means open government, reduced corruption and bureaucracy, improved personal security and the rule of fairly administered law. In other words, they must strive to offer the comforts of Europe with the opportunities of Africa.
I hope my noble friend will endorse some of these sentiments. I am sure she will have some carefully directed and pithy messages of her own for Commonwealth leaders, although she will be an equally good listener. I hope that she will share her thoughts with us. I believe that her successor, whoever he or she is and of whatever political colour, will listen carefully to her remarks.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have some rather personal reasons for being grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for initiating this very timely debate. In 1967 I became Britain's last Commonwealth Secretary. Ten years later, in 1977, the then Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked me whether I would go round the Commonwealth to help prepare the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that took place in this country.
I agreed with most of the noble Viscount's remarks. However, I refuse to follow him in that absolutely ghastly acronym, "CHOGM". I shall continue to call it a summit meeting or a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
That particular mission gave me a vivid impression of the great importance attributed to these meetings by those who are in the Commonwealth. I then had the difficult task of persuading the brand new Prime Minister of India, Mr. Desai, who had just taken office—I was his first overseas visitor—to leave his office and come to the Heads of Government Meeting. It was the easiest diplomatic triumph that I have ever had. Nothing was going to stop him coming to the meeting in London, provided he had the assurances which I gave him—totally irresponsibly—that his special dietary requirements could be met at the banquet at Buckingham Palace.
I regarded, and still regard, the transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth as Britain's greatest post-war achievement. The hopes, however, of making the Commonwealth a significant multiracial influence in world affairs, which many of us shared in years gone by, were undermined by the Rhodesian rebellion, on the one hand, which went on for so long and the South African apartheid situation, on the other. Those issues remained deeply divisive, I remember, at the 1977 Heads of Government Meeting. But the significance of our debate today is that they are now behind us and the Commonwealth can look to the future. There is an opportunity at the Edinburgh Summit to give Commonwealth co-operation what the Foreign Secretary has called "a fresh impetus" in a number of different directions. The noble Lord, Lord Acton, mentioned the important possibilities in trade and the advantages of bringing Trade Ministers of the Commonwealth together. I very much agree with him.

1199
The report of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth contains all kinds of useful examples of the good work that has gone on over the past year or two in promoting democracy, in trying to work away from military regimes towards democratic regimes and in other ways—combating crime, battling against drugs on a co-operative basis, co-operative work in the field of money laundering and so on. Much can be done in a constructive way in the new situation by the Commonwealth.
However, on the important and central issue of doing our best to promote and protect human rights in the Commonwealth, I do not believe that we can be happy about the progress that has been made in Nigeria since the Auckland-Millbrook Statement. Other noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in a milder way than I shall, have said how important it is to make progress on the matter. It is vital to do so at Edinburgh. It would be damaging if the Commonwealth Action Group came to be regarded rather as a Commonwealth "inaction group".
The Commonwealth has changed dramatically since 1977. Mention was made of the extraordinary additions to the African Commonwealth. Who would have thought a few years ago that a dominantly Francophone country like the Cameroon Republic or a country like Mozambique would today be part of the Commonwealth? I say in parenthesis to the Minister, who follows these matters closely, that I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the Cameroon Republic. We have a special responsibility there to the Anglophone minority in that predominantly Francophone country.
The lines between the old Commonwealth and the new, between the white developed Commonwealth and the new developing Commonwealth that used to exist, have changed radically. Some of the tiger economies of Asia are now leaving us behind. But there is much to do, especially in Africa. I remain of the view that Commonwealth educational co-operation is of the greatest importance in laying the long-term foundations of economic and democratic progress. I am talking about education at all levels, from primary to tertiary, and also about education in relation to specialist training. I listened with great concern to what the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said about what is happening in the press in Africa. The work of the Commonwealth Press Union, the Commonwealth Journalists' Association and the Thomson Foundation—of which I am a trustee and which seeks to help to train journalists from the African Commonwealth—is of long-term importance in providing a sounder basis for democracy and human rights.
The Commonwealth Education Ministers will meet in Botswana in July this year. No doubt their conclusions will be part of the agenda for the Edinburgh conference. I was grateful for the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, to the role of the Commonwealth Education Council, whose work I have known well over many years. It has made the point to us in preparation for the debate that the infrastructure for Commonwealth
1200
co-operation in education is largely in place. Great work has been done over many years in that field. But today it is underfunded and under-used.
Britain should give a lead in strengthening the multilateral programmes of intergovernmental educational co-operation in the Commonwealth through the various organisations that exist. In particular, we should offer to increase our contribution to what is called the Commonwealth of Learning that uses these new and marvellous techniques of distance learning. We should restore our contribution to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, in which I have had a personal interest over many years. I say to the Minister that I do not think we should do so unconditionally but as part of a collective approach in which other countries play their part.
Finally, if there were ever a distinguished servant of my old Commonwealth Relations Office, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, could claim to be that. I endorse what he said generously but accurately about the way in which the Commonwealth Secretariat is conducted under the Secretary-General. It seems to avoid the kind of things that happen in the United Nations in terms of a bloated bureaucracy and charges of extravagance. On a pretty modest budget it achieves remarkable goals. The time has come—and I think Edinburgh would be a good time—to do something about obtaining collective agreement to some modest but significant and useful increase in its budget.
The Commonwealth of educational exchanges underlines the fact that the Commonwealth exists and has reality at many different levels in professional exchanges of all kinds. The level of the political leaders who will gather in Edinburgh is of great importance. But, left to them, I am inclined to feel that over the years the Commonwealth might have suffered a good deal of fragmentation.
At the highest level, the role of Her Majesty the Queen, with her commitment, courtesy and patience over a blessedly long reign, has been of historic significance in maintaining the Commonwealth. As a Scot, I am pleased that she will preside over the 1997 conference in Edinburgh and St. Andrews. Scotland has countless links with the Commonwealth.
The most recent experience of Scotland in hosting the Commonwealth Games was not a notably happy one, partly because of the troubles of apartheid in sport dividing the sporting side of the occasion and partly because of the financial manipulations of Mr. Robert Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell is no longer with us, but fortunately President Mandela will be present with the Queen in Edinburgh in the autumn. I hope that everyone associated with the Government in this country will give the maximum backing to make a thorough success of the Year of the Commonwealth in the United Kingdom.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may start by taking up the theme introduced in his closing remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I think we would all want to put on record our profound appreciation and respect for the tremendous leadership in the

1201
Commonwealth given by the Queen. I hope that I am not out of order in saying that in my view—because I had the privilege in my early years of experiencing his contribution—we are particularly fortunate to have with us in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote. We all know what a powerful and important contribution he has made, second to none, in this context.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, deserves our appreciation for having initiated the debate. It has special significance, not only because the United Kingdom will be host to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting but because that meeting is to be in the context of the United Kingdom Year of the Commonwealth, to be launched at Lancaster House tomorrow.
There is at times an unhealthy amount of myopic xenophobia in this House and, indeed, in the other place. Fortunately, it has not been reflected in this evening's debate. But a fundamental reality of life is increasing global interdependence. Every time I consider the future of my first grandson I realise that there is hardly a major issue that will impinge on his life which can be satisfactorily handled or resolved in a national context alone: the economy, trade, resources, the environment, global warming, health—I know that I have emphasised all this in debates before—ethnic conflict, security, crime, drugs, population, migration, terrorism, air and sea transportation—the list is endless. A major test of government, any government, is therefore the contribution they are making to viable global policies. International co-operation is not just a nice idea; it is essential. That will be as true of the new Labour government as of the outgoing Conservative Government.
The United Kingdom desperately needs a stable and prosperous world in which to trade. Today, in too many parts of the world, nationalism and ethnic rivalry—frequently aggravated and fuelled by economic disadvantage and social injustice—threaten global stability. Ethnic rivalry is literally tearing states apart, hence the anxieties earlier this evening about Cyprus. The consequences are seldom contained within the states concerned. They spread—not least by migration and terrorism—across the globe as a whole.
To respond to all this we need effective international institutions. The problem is that few are as effective as they could be. Some have outlived their usefulness. Political rationality demands that we should not withdraw in exasperation from international co-operation but, instead, use all our experience to make a priority of recommitting ourselves where it matters. That is why it is so important to get the European Union right, NATO and the Western European Union right, the OSCE right, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank right and, above all, the UN system right. But do we need the Commonwealth? The sentiment of this debate has been unambiguous in that respect.
1202
I am happy to refer—as other noble Lords have done—to that first-class report produced by the all-party Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place last year. It was equally unambiguous in its judgment when it said,
"Our report therefore has a central and explicit conclusion. It is that the Commonwealth is acquiring a new significance in a rapidly transforming world and that United Kingdom policy-makers should bring this major change to the forefront of their thinking".
I hope I will be forgiven if I say that, if it was suggesting that United Kingdom Ministers should bring it to the forefront of their thinking, there was an implication that perhaps not all United Kingdom Ministers have got it in the forefront of their thinking now.
The Commonwealth has 53 member states and a population of 1, 500 million—in excess of a quarter of the total population of the world. It encompasses every major regional bloc and economic zone and virtually all the world's great religions. Through its members it has access to 22 regional organisations. Simply because of its voluntary, flexible character, based on history and political and cultural links, it has a special potential, perhaps second to none, for a creative, dynamic contribution to global governance both within itself and as part of other regional and global institutions. That is why we should make use of our Commonwealth links far more than we do in our approach to the reform and work of the UN and international financial institutions. We should also certainly draw on our experience and involvement in the Commonwealth—I was glad to hear this emphasised in the debate tonight—in our role within the EU, not least in determining the future of Lomé arrangements.
Let me quote from the Harare Declaration of 1991, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred in his introductory remarks. In that important document the Commonwealth leader stated,
"The special strength of the Commonwealth lies in the combination of the diversity of its members with their shared inheritance in language, culture and the rule of law … It is uniquely placed to serve as a model and as a catalyst for new forms of friendship and co-operation to all in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations".
The Commonwealth's strength does indeed lie in its diversity, and that is something desperately needed in the world. If humanity is not to destroy itself we must learn to celebrate diversity and build upon it. It is, after all, the essential richness of the human species.
But there is a danger. The danger is that the Commonwealth could deceive itself by finding a common rhetoric but failing to deliver. Let me again turn briefly to the Harare Declaration. In that important document the leaders pledged themselves to,
"the protection and the promotion of … democracy … the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government; fundamental human rights … provision of universal access to education … the promotion of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty … the development of human resources, in particular through education, training, health, culture, sport … protection of the environment … help for small Commonwealth states in tackling their particular economic and security problems; support of the United Nations and other international institutions in the world's search for peace, disarmament and effective control; and in the promotion of international consensus on major global political, economic and social issues".

1203
To embrace those objectives but to leave them unfulfilled would inevitably strengthen cynicism and play into the hands of the ethnic entrepreneurs and racists, the dangerous nationalists and the little Englanders. At Edinburgh there will have to be an honest review of just what has been achieved and of what more needs to be done and how.
The noble Viscount referred to progress, and progress there has certainly been. But we must never be complacent. How much impact has the Commonwealth's Ministerial Action Group had on Nigeria or The Gambia? What of the executions, the political prisoners, the continued deprivation of human rights? Why was it that the Ministerial Action Group—about which my noble friend Lord Rea spoke—visited Nigeria without seeing the opposition or the political prisoners? How does that compare with the significant role played by the Eminent Persons Group in South Africa in 1985? Is not there now a likelihood that in Nigeria General Abacha will follow the example of President Jammeh in The Gambia with the rigged presidential election there in the absence of media freedom? And that Abacha, too, will take off his uniform and supposedly run as a civilian in the same unconvincing way? What is the Commonwealth doing about that? Indeed, what is the Commonwealth doing about the worrying situation in Cameroon described by my noble friend Lord Rea?
What of the aid flows? How far are those going to the poorest? And, similarly, what of private investment? How is this helping the nations worst off of all in sub-Saharan Africa? How far is education, especially primary education, being given the priority for which the Harare Declaration called? And as for peace, disarmament and effective arms control, how has the Commonwealth been able to help? How great a part has it played in conflict resolution, in pre-emptive diplomacy, and in any moves to bring the arms trade to account?
Those questions must be asked and honestly answered at Edinburgh. We all know that it is easier in politics to start than to finish. But unless we evaluate performance against aspirations all the time, and where necessary take corrective action, it can too easily all become elaborately and expensively counter-productive.
The Commonwealth has been well blessed in its distinguished line of Secretary-Generals. The present Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, is a fine example. They have been supported by a small and dedicated staff. We owe it to them to gear the member states all the time to effectiveness not platitudes.
Before concluding, I should like to emphasise to the House that as the new Labour government go to Edinburgh, they will take with them a firm determination to give the Commonwealth greater priority and support in their foreign policy than has been the case with the present Government. The pedigree is there. The Attlee Government played a crucial role in the transition from the British Empire to the Commonwealth. The Wilson Government led in establishing the Commonwealth Secretariat in 1965. The
1204
Callaghan Government were firm in their commitment. The Blair government will build on that record. They will draw on the good will established by Labour's consistent support for the anti-apartheid struggle and liberation in South Africa.
Our priorities will be to enhance the role and status of the Commonwealth section within the FCO and to ensure that the "Commonwealth dimension" is considered in all aspects of Britain's external relations; to work to strengthen the Harare Declaration and its implementation as it applies to human rights and democracy; to develop the Commonwealth's advisory role in the development of democracy in Commonwealth countries; and, most essential, to press for a Commonwealth economic declaration, with an accompanying action plan, covering trade and sustainable development. The economic declaration we favour will set out firm proposals to increase trade and economic co-operation between member states and expand opportunities for direct investment. It will also seek to ensure that the benefits of that trade and investment are far more fairly distributed across the Commonwealth and that concern for the environment is integral to the economic policies of member states. To support all this the Labour government will encourage educational and professional exchanges across Commonwealth member countries and we do believe that the impressive Commonwealth Institute has an important part to play.
I conclude by emphasising that our whole strategy will be to fulfil that conclusion to the Harare Declaration in which the Commonwealth pledged itself to renew and enhance the value and importance of the Commonwealth as an institution which can and should strengthen and enrich the lives not only of its own members and their peoples but also of the wider community of peoples of which they are a part.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister of State for Africa and the Commonwealth as well as Minister for Overseas Development, I live in the real world of what is going on at the present time. For that reason I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for initiating this debate.
The relevance of the actions we take in the Commonwealth in the 21st century should never be underestimated. We are a vital component of development for so many countries. The Government greatly look forward to welcoming all those Commonwealth heads of government to the meeting to be chaired by the Prime Minister in Edinburgh in October. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, this will be the first time that this vital meeting has been held in Britain since 1977. We are looking forward to working with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, and his excellent staff here in London at the Commonwealth Secretariat to ensure the success of the meeting. I shall return to the Commonwealth Secretariat a little later.

1205
Perhaps I may begin by mentioning the theme already quoted by some. In October last year, senior officials of the Commonwealth met in London at the Commonwealth Institute under the chairmanship of the FCO Permanent Secretary Sir John Coles. They unanimously agreed to the Prime Minister's suggestion that the theme for this year's Heads of Government meeting should be "Trade, Investment and Development, the Road to Commonwealth Prosperity". That is very much doing what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said—making the Heads of Government meeting relevant and effective. Without trade, investment and development, the Commonwealth will not be firmly on that road to prosperity.
The theme reflects the Commonwealth's determination that the Harare Declaration of 1991, under which Commonwealth members have committed themselves to agreed standards of democracy and human rights, should be built upon so as to benefit the prosperity and wellbeing of the Commonwealth and its peoples. Throughout the world, private direct investment flows now outweigh official flows—including development assistance—by more than two to one. Only those Commonwealth countries which commit themselves to liberalisation and creating a pro-business environment will keep winning investment. We can see that in many other fora. Investors seek political stability. By adhering to the Harare principles and thus establishing a sound political, good governance base, Commonwealth members can attract that vital investment. That will be all the more important as we enter the next century.
The Commonwealth Secretariat is already playing a leading role in this field. The Commonwealth private investment initiative was launched at Marlborough House during President Mandela's historic visit to Britain last July. It has been a notable success. Our own Commonwealth Development Corporation is making a major contribution.
We do not forget the importance to Britain of Commonwealth countries as trade and investment partners. I was delighted to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, and others about trade. The Commonwealth includes 13 of the world's 20 fastest growing economies in per capita terms. Our balance of trade with the Commonwealth is healthier than our balance of trade with the European Union or the rest of the world. Exports to the Commonwealth, far from declining as some feared with our entry into the European Union, grew by 65 per cent. from 1992 to 1995. The dynamic emerging economies of Asia—Malaysia and Singapore—have contributed to our economic growth in recent years. We should never forget that. In the past five years, our exports to Singapore and Malaysia have more than doubled. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned the recent visit by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Those countries are becoming increasingly important trading partners. They have founded much of their development on what they have learnt from us and with us. The good thing about the Commonwealth is that we learn from them as we all progress in this highly competitive world.
1206
However, the trade is not all one way. In 1994 Britain was a major importer from over half the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is an important recipient of British overseas investment—some £36.4 billion, over 20 per cent. of our investment stock. We also provide substantial development assistance to the Commonwealth. In 1995-96 we gave £460 million, 54 per cent. of our bilateral development assistance programme. In addition we gave £19 million to Commonwealth development programmes; £8 million to Commonwealth multilateral programmes; and £11 million to the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan. That is an important element. I like the idea of one noble Lord who suggested that the millennium should perhaps concentrate on giving more scholarships to help people develop their skills within the Commonwealth.
I can say to the noble Lords, Lord Acton and Lord Moore of Wolvercote, that we are determined to do much for trade with the Commonwealth. We are particularly keen that all government departments look at the opportunities. We have deputy secretary-level officials in the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who are charged with advising on and administering the UK trade promotion strategy, and the Commonwealth dimension in particular. They must ensure that good use is made of all Commonwealth ties in high level visits and in encouraging British companies to visit Commonwealth markets for the first time. A good deal is going on. There will be a continuing need for discussion of trade and economic issues not just at Edinburgh but also at the meetings of finance Ministers to which reference was made in the debate. We do not declare that there should not be specific ad hoc meetings of trade Ministers, but it is much better to focus them either on the regional dimension or on specific sectors. Trade in the round is just so wide that the conversation often becomes very diverse. So focused meetings on trade are the most important way forward.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Acton, mentioned the role of this country in alleviating the debt burden, starting with the 1990 discussion at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting and the eventual Trinidad terms. There is also the new debt initiative first formulated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Malta meeting of finance Ministers.
There is a great deal going on. I am glad to say that we have a Commonwealth working group now on private capital flows. As a result of a UK initiative, that has become a very important way forward. We are trying to build on the diverse experience of Commonwealth countries for the next meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Mauritius in September. There will be a report on the role of national and international policies in encouraging private investment. The establishment of the group recognises the increasing importance of private flows and the first meeting takes place next month in London.
In recognising the importance of the theme agreed for the Heads of Government meeting we are working on the idea of holding a business forum just before the meeting itself. Commonwealth business people will be

1207
able to meet, exchange experiences and set out their own views for Commonwealth heads of government to consider when they discuss the theme.
We want too to reflect the importance of the non-governmental sector. To do that the Royal Commonwealth Society, with the full support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will organise a Commonwealth centre in the margins of the Heads of Government meeting to which non-government Commonwealth organisations are invited to participate.
I noted particularly what my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever said about the importance of the Commonwealth Press Union. In Auckland in 1995 I addressed the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association, which is doing very valuable work. None of the remarks made tonight about Zambia, Cameroon and Nigeria in respect of journalists and the freedom of the press will go un-noted or without action. I say in particular that the CPU and many of the other organisations are being helped particularly by the initiative of the Royal Commonwealth Society and the Commonwealth Foundation. They are drawing together the Commonwealth family in this Commonwealth centre at the Heads of Government meeting.
The Commonwealth is a voluntary organisation. Some members have chosen to leave it; some countries who may be eligible have chosen not to join. In the 1990s we welcomed Namibia, South Africa, Cameroon and Mozambique. The constitutional report written by Sir Paul Reeves of New Zealand on Fiji offers that country a way back. Whether that opportunity is taken or not remains to be seen.
The Commonwealth Secretariat, which so ably conducts the affairs of the Commonwealth, is now considering the criteria for membership of the Commonwealth, at the request of the last Heads of Government meeting. The issue will be on the agenda at Edinburgh. Closer to home, the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, mentioned the Foreign Affairs Committee's welcome report which was debated fairly fully in another place in June.
The Commonwealth is acquiring a new significance in a rapidly transforming world. The Government agree with that view. It was the end of disagreements about South Africa—a feature of Commonwealth meetings for nearly 30 years—which gave Commonwealth relations a new, positive focus. Certainly, the adoption of the Harare Declaration in 1991 set a benchmark to which other non-Commonwealth governments might aspire.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever and others have said, not all Commonwealth governments are yet meeting the standards set by the Harare Declaration. That was why we agreed the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme at Auckland. We are working on that in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group in order to deal with violations of that declaration. In Edinburgh we shall be considering the findings of the group on which I serve and particularly Nigeria's current suspension from the Commonwealth.
1208
There is much work to be done to make sure that Nigeria improves her treatment of her own people. It is true that there were no official meetings with any of those who are detained in Nigeria when the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group went there last November. But I managed to meet representatives of the National Electoral Commission, the transitional committees, the leaders of five recently registered political parties, the traditional rulers and the chairman of the Nigerian Human Rights Commission. I also managed to see a number of other people, including the daughter of Doctor Ransome-Kuti with whom I had a very positive conversation.
While in Nigeria we tried to see Chief Abiola. We asked to see General Obasanjo. But that was not possible then. We have been working on making all our contacts even more vital, ensuring that we get the information and continue to work. We had an audience with General Abacha. I believe that we were not officially supposed to meet the representatives of the human rights and pro-democracy groups. I can assure noble Lords that I had little sleep but a very good visit.
What we were pressing for as a group, not just for the sake of Nigeria, but for the sake of the Commonwealth, human rights and democracy throughout the Commonwealth, was the prompt restoration of accountable 'civilian government in Nigeria; the immediate release of all political prisoners including Chief Abiola; the rapid resolution of the case of the 19 Ogonis who face the same charges as the late Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates; and a review of the prison conditions. We shall be meeting next month to consider the material that we received during the visit and further material that has been sent to us. We shall decide on the next steps that need to be taken in preparation for the Edinburgh meeting later this year.
I believe that it is too early for me to comment on what those recommendations will be. There is much work still to be done. But we are very conscious of the need to monitor the implementation of the Nigerian transition timetable. The local party elections rescheduled to take place in March will be the next important benchmark. These must be free and fair. We continue to watch the human rights situation not only in Nigeria but also in Cameroon. I shall certainly take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and those of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, asked about membership of the Commonwealth. I have already said that we have a study in the Commonwealth Secretariat now about membership in the future. It is not true that the department has lost count of how many countries hope to join the Commonwealth. There is no formal application to join the Commonwealth currently outstanding. I hear all sorts of reports and rumours. My colleagues sometimes tease when I go to a country which is outside the Commonwealth, saying, "Don't get them too interested in Britain. We have not yet worked out what are the rules." That is because that work is going on.
There are no formal rules for admission to the Commonwealth at the moment. A decision is taken by the heads of government and by consensus. In the

1209
Harare Declaration the Commonwealth defined itself as comprising nations which have a shared inheritance in language, culture and the rule of law. As I believe all your Lordships know, the declaration also outlines the standards of democracy and human rights to which all Commonwealth members should aspire. There are no formal membership rules, but I can confirm to my noble friend that all members acknowledge the Queen as head of the Commonwealth.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, how is that done? Is there a formal declaration?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I said, there is no formal ceremony, but there is an acknowledgement by countries when they become members of the Commonwealth. The situation described by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth about Africa in the Commonwealth is very important. The Commonwealth has probably meant more to African countries in their development than it has done to many others. I am very conscious of the responsibility that I carry for Africa within the Commonwealth.
I was grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, for his kind remarks. I shall not take up his tempting invitation, but perhaps I may advise him that having worked on Africa for more than 11 years trying to open up economic opportunities, to combat corruption and to get people on the right path, whatever happens to me in a few months' time I am not giving up on Africa. That may comfort a few people who think that they are going to see the back of me; they are not.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about the budget for the Heads of Government meeting. There is an adequate budget for the conference and we shall ensure that the conference does both Britain and the Commonwealth proud. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, also asked about resources. I advise him that we pay very real tribute to the vital contribution which Chief Anyaoku and the secretariat make. The Commonwealth as a whole has agreed on zero real growth. The UK pays 30 per cent. of the costs. We do so willingly. We believe that we are getting value for money, but that is always something that one continues to watch. Sadly, many Commonwealth members are in arrears. That is one of the problems that the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Heads of Government meeting must tackle.
There will be a seminar on democracy in Africa shortly in Botswana, encouraging all countries to put into practice that to which they signed up in the Harare Declaration. That is where we can press hard on those who are falling behind in their respect for human rights and the rule of law.
I am conscious that I should not take too much time in this debate, but I must express to all those involved with us in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, in the work set upon us from the Auckland meeting, how grateful we are for the support of the Commonwealth Secretariat, and particularly for that of the Deputy Secretary-General, Mr. K. Srinivasan, who has been a real stalwart in what has been a very difficult task. It is easy to pull the Commonwealth Ministerial
1210
Action Group apart. It is much harder to build on the Harare Declaration the sort of future which all eight members seek.
We are proud to be involved in the Commonwealth. I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, about the absence of the word "Commonwealth". For many years I have tried to go through every document produced by the Foreign Office to make sure not only that the word "Commonwealth" is there but that it is there with a meaning and with back-up. Obviously, I fell down on the job in the recent report—probably because of endless travel.
However, not only do we have an excellent and dedicated department for dealing with Commonwealth co-ordination, which has been significantly reinforced for the Heads of Government meeting, but, also, bilateral relations with Commonwealth countries occupy a very large proportion of the time of all of the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Now, with the renegotiation of Lomé, many more people who are attributed to the European Union department, are working on Commonwealth situations. There is no way in which the Commonwealth is forgotten. Perhaps we should have a spell check so that as soon as "Foreign" is printed, the word "Commonwealth" has to follow it. At least the Foreign Secretary, in his reply to the excellent report of the Select Committee on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, gave the undertaking that we would re-examine what happened. We are currently considering how we can reflect our existing and on-going commitment to the Commonwealth in our 1997 departmental report.
I could say much more about this marvellous organisation, the Commonwealth. This year is a very special year. I pay my tribute also to Her Majesty the Queen. Not only has she given 40 years' tireless service to the Commonwealth and, more, to its people, but she will take a very full part in this year's Heads of Government meeting which comes just after the 50th anniversary of her wedding. Her Majesty has been absolutely indefatigable. Whenever I meet present and past Commonwealth leaders, I am reminded of their deep affection for Her Majesty and for the tremendous example she sets to everyone else. If we could all emulate even a tiny part of what Her Majesty has done for the Commonwealth, we would be able to achieve even more than we have so far.
I am delighted that the Royal Commonwealth Society has declared 1997 the UK Year of the Commonwealth. I am sure that the whole House joins me in endorsing that initiative. The Foreign Secretary will launch the year tomorrow. Sadly, I am not able to be present, but I shall certainly be there in spirit.
Britain's role in the Commonwealth will not diminish once the Year of the Commonwealth is over. We look forward to taking a continuing full role in future Commonwealth activities. In particular, we look forward to taking part in the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur in 1998 and to welcoming Commonwealth athletes to the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002. In the meantime, we have much to do and the Commonwealth Heads of Government

1211
meeting in October in Edinburgh will be a very important milestone in the unique venture of international co-operation which the Commonwealth represents. It is worthwhile. It is good news for all its members, and we have to make it even better for those who have not yet lived up to the Harare Declaration.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all speakers who have taken part in the debate. I take the upbeat messages contained in all contributions as an endorsement of the Commonwealth approach. I had prepared a few short remarks on all speakers' contributions, but given the late hour I hope that I may be forgiven for addressing just one point.
I was distressed to hear the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Rea, but I consoled myself that identifying problem areas is what in large part the Commonwealth is all about. I have just returned from Cameroon and had the opportunity to call on a number of Ministers—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Viscount wish to withdraw his Motion?
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, may I appeal to the House to take up one more minute of its time? I believe that I have five minutes in which to wind up. With the permission of the House, may I have one more minute? Any objections?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, perhaps I may advise the noble Viscount that the time allowed for this debate is two-and-a-half hours. It is not a question of time being allocated for wind-ups. The two-and-a-half hours have now expired.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, then perhaps I may reiterate my remarks and thank everyone for coming. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
7.57 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Acquisition of British citizenship]:
Lord Willoughby de Broke moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("and (c) who has not after 21st November 1996 renounced or otherwise ceased of his own volition to hold the status of a national or citizen of another country.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this simple amendment to Clause 1 tightens the effects of the Bill. It seeks to make it impossible for anyone who will be encompassed by the Bill to renounce any other
1212
nationality that they may have in order to benefit from the provisions of the Bill, thus, I believe, making it even better than when we first began. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, if the Government were supporting my noble friend's Bill then we would be happy to support this amendment. That said, the amendment does represent an improvement to the Bill because it would ensure that people did not abuse the legislation by deliberately putting themselves in a position to benefit from it. I shall not be opposing the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
At this stage of the Bill I do not propose to enter into a detailed debate about the flaws in the position of the Government. However, there is one point that is worth mentioning. If the resistance to this Bill is an issue of immigration, which I believe it is, surely the Government must revoke their current policy, which means that inevitably these people will come to this country. The Government should therefore support the Bill, which would have the effect of giving that community in Hong Kong the security and status that it needs to stay there. The basis on which the Government introduced the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 was precisely to anchor people in Hong Kong. This Bill will have exactly the same effect. It is indeed an anti-immigration Bill.
If the Government believe that life will be roses all the way for this community, why have they introduced a separate policy towards them? The position of the Government is logically incoherent. Either these people have a problem or they do not. The Government have recognised that they have a problem. Surely, they must come up with something more convincing than the current half-baked asylum policy that is now on offer.
The cause of this Bill is supported by people with a deep knowledge of Hong Kong: two most distinguished former Governors of Hong Kong; the present Governor; the Hong Kong Legislative Council; my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who is unable to be here this evening but who had ministerial responsibility for Hong Kong; and all parties in this House and in another place. Yet the Government do nothing but repeat woodenly the same discredited arguments.
The position of the Government reminds me of the story—I promise that I will deal with it briefly—of the proud parents who went to see their son at a passing out parade at his military academy. All the cadets marched past beautifully to the sound of a military band. The mother nudged the father and said, "Look, Dad, everybody's out of step except our Johnnie". The Government are out of step with what needs to be done—and, above all, what can be done so easily.
I understand that the Government of China would have no objection to what is proposed in the Bill. We do not have to seek permission from our partners in

1213
Europe or even the Commission. It is our responsibility alone. I know that my noble friend the Minister is having a torrid time at the moment, but I hope she accepts that the Bill will help the Government. This is unfinished business in Hong Kong. Britain can with justification be proud of her record there. Why tarnish that achievement by failing to act on a matter that can be so easily dealt with? I am not alone in believing that if the Government miss this opportunity we risk leaving behind a land mine that can easily blow up in our faces. Why when we have honour within our grasp do we risk dishonour? I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, first I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in pursuing the Bill at this stage. I believe that he has behaved admirably and in the interests of the House and the country. Secondly, I should like to make one more plea to the Government to reconsider their position. It is not yet too late. This would be a small step to take but it would be of very great importance to our reputation. I make the appeal in sadness because I now have little hope of it being accepted. I also make the plea out of honour to my predecessor, the late Lord Bonham-Carter, who fought very hard for this cause. I am sorry that time is getting so short but still there is no success.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, even at this late stage I should like to add my strong support to that of many other noble Lords for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, which seeks to grant full UK citizenship to a small group of non-Chinese British nationals.
When I commanded the British forces in Hong Kong in the 1970s I got to know this group very well. It provided a very large proportion of the security guards and attendants at the headquarters and installations of the British forces. Indeed, many of them had gone to Hong Kong in the first place precisely to serve in that capacity. In that capacity invariably they served the British Crown with the greatest loyalty, devotion to duty and reliability, whatever the alarms and excursions, of which there were quite a number. To those of us who have lived in Hong Kong it is quite clear that Britain owes them a great debt of gratitude and has a special responsibility for them. That is manifested by the unanimous and unequivocal support of the present Governor and past very distinguished Governors. For this country to allow a clearly identifiable group of Crown servants and their dependants to become stateless in terms of right of abode anywhere, and therefore without any security or protection for them to continue to live with full citizens' rights in Hong Kong itself, is a cruel and heartless way to repay these devoted servants.
1214
I strongly urge the Government at this difficult time for Hong Kong, particularly when sovereignty passes, to show real understanding and compassion for this non-Chinese group and to honour their moral obligations to it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly reiterate the support that I have already expressed for my noble friend's Bill. At Second Reading my noble friend the Minister said that this group would continue to have a right of abode in Hong Kong because the Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guaranteed it for people who did not have a right of abode elsewhere. She went on to say that that had been reaffirmed in recent discussions with the Chinese Government.
However, there have not been a few recent examples where the Chinese interpretation of what has been agreed has differed from ours quite radically. This is likely to be another such case. What this small group asks for is status. The position was clearly and accurately stated by the Prime Minister, who said that this group did not wish to leave Hong Kong. They were settled there and their business and family ties were in Hong Kong, but they wished to be sure that if ever they came under pressure to leave they would have a country to go to. What possible reason can there be to continue to refuse to make one very simple gesture that will give these people the status to stay and avoid any likelihood or danger of pressure? It would demonstrate not only to them but to the Chinese, who will respect us for it, that we look after our own.
These people fought for us against the Japanese. They are our family and we owe them loyalty. This is a question of honour. To act now will remove a possible source of serious further embarrassment in our relations not only with the Chinese but with India and the Commonwealth. That would be another not inconsiderable advantage, especially when the Commonwealth Conference is due to be held here later this year. I am a simple soul. It seems to me that this gesture is small, easy to make and will earn us much goodwill. What government can afford not to make it?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Park, my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and all those who have spoken in support of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has said that the Government of China do not object to this Bill. I make one other point. The Government of China have stated quite openly that ethnic minorities will not be able to exercise citizenship as fully as the Chinese majority and have recommended that they petition the British Government for passports. This information has emerged through the Ximhua News Agency, which de facto is the Chinese Embassy in Hong Kong. That does not fill me with a great deal of hope that come the 1st July these people will be treated properly.
On a human level, only today I hear that there are people in this group who are increasingly desperate. They feel abandoned and stateless. They can no longer

1215
call Hong Kong home. they are in a state of panic and feel quite scared. We are not dealing here with politics but a situation in which people just want to feel safe.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should like to add one or two points to the speeches that have been made so far. First, I express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for piloting the Bill this far through this House. He will realise from speeches that he has heard this evening and earlier, especially the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, both today and at Committee stage, that his Bill has overwhelming support from all sides of the House beyond party and faction. What concerns me very much when I ask myself what possible reason there is to be opposed to this Bill is how without it we can make this small, vulnerable ethnic minority feel safe. How can we give them real security? How can we give them legal certainty? How can we give them what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to as status, full status as British citizens when they really need it?
What concerns me is that the Government's position in explaining the circumstances in which the guarantee will be honoured is still so obscure without the Bill as to leave members of this minority almost wholly in the dark as to when the guarantee can be honoured.
I asked some questions of the Government, and on 13th January the noble Baroness the Minister gave Written Answers to a series of Questions (Hansard, cols. WA 15-16), but I was really seeking some assurance without the passage of the Bill. The first Question I asked was whether the Government's guarantee to the ethnic minorities of Hong Kong of admission to the UK for settlement,
"if ever they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong",
was based on clearly prescribed criteria; and, if so, what the criteria were; and, if not, whether the Government would publish them.
I also asked what the Government regarded as sufficient evidence of "pressure to leave Hong Kong" and of "discrimination" and "racial harassment". I asked how the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong could be "secure" in their knowledge of the Government's intentions in the absence of criteria. The Government's Answer was to refer me to the position set out during the Second Reading debate, which frankly clarified none of these points.
The noble Baroness—I realise compelled to do so—stated that the Government have no prescribed detailed criteria for operation of the guarantee, but did not explain why they had failed to give any criteria. Nor did the answers explain how the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong could possibly be secure in the absence of criteria. All that was said was that the Government had undertaken that the operation of the guarantee,
"will not be interpreted narrowly or restrictively".
If I may say so with deep respect, it is a profoundly unsatisfactory position for the Government to remain unwilling to tell this House, and therefore to tell the
1216
members of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong, what are the specific circumstances that would need to be met for their assurances to come into effect.
I also asked, finally, why the Government had said that they would admit members of the minorities only if,
"they had nowhere else to go".
The answer given to that question was that,
"The guarantee applies only to those with nowhere else to go because members of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who are not solely British nationals, but hold the nationality of another country, will have the option of going there".
I fully realise that, but that was not the point of the question.
What I would like to know, and I imagine the House would like to know, is why this tiny, vulnerable group are regarded as so unwelcome in this country that they are only to be admitted if they have nowhere else to go. Surely we should be giving the same generous treatment to them as was given, for example, by a previous Conservative Government to Ugandan Asians and that was given also to British Asians from East Africa and elsewhere who came as a result of the odious policy of Africanisation in the late 1960s. But, as has been said, the Government continue to oppose this very modest, very moderate, sensible Bill and leave the position quite uncertain. That seems to me to be the overwhelming reason to put the position clear on the statute book, unless the Government at this stage were willing to do it by an administrative announcement of proper, enforceable criteria. I am sorry to have taken so long, but I hope the position is clear.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to join the congratulations that have been given to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the effort he has put into this Bill, on his great commitment and indeed on his success in achieving support on all sides of the House, with the exception of the Government Front Bench.
I regret very much that the Government do not see fit to support this Bill. It is probably not a secret but it is certainly widely believed that the Government are actually divided on this issue. Of course, they always formally speak with one voice, but many of us believe that the views inside the Government are divided and it is only the Home Secretary who is standing out against the Government supporting this Bill.
Listening to the arguments that have been put forward by the Government, I note that one of the points that has been made is that they are afraid that if they grant citizenship to this particular group of people, it will somehow open the doors to similar demands from other groups throughout the world. I would emphatically reject that. These people are in a unique position. We have never before handed a colony over to another country, least of all to a communist run country. In all other instances of decolonisation the countries concerned have been given independence. Therefore, people have been given a particular type of citizenship in the knowledge that they will continue to live in the same country, a country that is now independent and a country that has accepted the basis of the nationality of

1217
some of its people. I refer, for example, to some of the East African countries. But here we have an entirely different situation. We are leaving a small group of people in a very vulnerable position without the basic rights that ought to go with the handover of a territory like Hong Kong to China.
If this debate were taking place at a time such that a change of government could bring in new legislation before 1st July it might not be so serious. However, the Minister will know that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party are committed to bringing such legislation in—certainly the Labour Party is, I believe with Liberal Democrat support—should there be a change of government after the election. But the difficulty is that the election is likely to be too late in the day for such legislation to be introduced by an incoming government in time to become law by 1st July. That is why the matter is so urgent and that is why it is important that this Bill goes to the House of Commons with the hope that the Government will have some change of mind and feel able to support it at the eleventh hour.
The numbers concerned are very small. We are talking about some 3, 000 individuals. The principle is fundamental and I hope that even at this late hour the Government will show a change of heart.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I briefly reiterate my support for the Bill. Practically everything that could be said about the importance of this issue and the need to deal with it has now been said. With the amendment that has just been passed, the cap is put on measures which are practical and would be effective—and which, incidentally, would not, I believe, lead to the movement of significant numbers of people. Rather, it would give confidence to this group to remain in Hong Kong and continue to contribute to its success, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall has said they have done for so long.
We have discussed this matter over a long period, but time is running out for us to be able to deal with it in a way which is practical, effective and honourable. May I at this late stage appeal to the Government that if this Bill is passed by your Lordships' House tonight, if and when it gets to another place they will be prepared to give it a fair wind?
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I have but four brief points to make at this stage. The first is to reiterate the congratulations and sincere thanks of the House to my noble friend Lord Willoughy de Broke for his perseverance and to the memory, as the Liberal Democrat Front Bench said, to the late Lord Bonham-Carter, who instigated the proposal. We owe them both a great debt.
My second point is to my noble friend the Minister. I say how curious I find it that the present Governor of Hong Kong should be so much at odds with a Conservative government on this issue—a government of a party of which he was chairman until the last election. I am sure that my noble friend will, as always, listen most attentively to what is said. I hope that she will pass on to her honourable and right honourable
1218
friends in another place that they should take seriously what not merely eminent past governors but the current Governor of Hong Kong have had to say on this subject.
My third point relates to a specific issue. I hope that I am not giving away any confidences, but in correspondence between my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke under the heading of "The status of British Nationals overseas" it reads:
"and as solely British nationals they"—
BNOs, I assume—
"will also have British consular protection both in Hong Kong and when travelling overseas".
I know that it was 1981, but I recall taking a fairly active part in the then British Nationality Bill as it went through this House. If my memory is correct, that status lasts for two generations only. What happens to the third generation in view of the previous paragraph in which she mentioned the important safeguard that they can come to the UK if they come under pressure to leave? At that stage they are stateless.
My final point is the same as that made by all noble Lords: this is a very, very small issue. It involves a very small number of people. The "damage" that the Home Office may see in giving the Bill a fair passage is as nothing, but nothing, to the message that the passing of the Bill would give to the people concerned, to Hong Kong in general. We must remember that the Government have said again and again that from 1 st July this Parliament, this Palace of Westminster, will not cease to pay close attention to Hong Kong. The message would go to the people of Hong Kong in general. It would go to the People's Republic of China. That is an important point. The message would go to the world at large that the British have not lost their—I know that this is a somewhat cliched comment—sense of justice and fair play. I again ask my noble friend the Minister to consider this seriously and so to recommend to her honourable and right honourable friends.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I start by giving credit to the Government for what they have done about giving British citizenship to the reasonable demands of the people in Hong Kong. The one exception is the ethnic minority. That is causing resentment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said, it could blow up. In these last months of our administration, surely we want to avoid an emotional and raucous row about the passports and nationality of this small but highly influential and admirable group.
The Government should bear in mind that if there were such a row, the large international press corps of Hong Kong would make hay of it to our very great discredit; in other words, this is an issue which, if mishandled, could go seriously wrong. The Bill offers a compassionate and honourable way out. I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the points which have been made both in this evening's and in the earlier debates on this Bill and

1219
I fully understand the case which has been made from all sides. I do not in any way underestimate the importance which is attached to this subject. It is abundantly clear that this is a matter on which all your Lordships who have spoken not just tonight but throughout the Bill's stages hold very strong views.
The Government are not insensitive to the concerns of the solely British Hong Kong ethnic minorities. It is precisely because we do understand the fears of this community that we have taken the steps we have to offer them the reassurance that, if they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong at any time from next July, they will be admitted to the United Kingdom for settlement. However, we believed, and continue to believe, that it is unnecessary.
I shall not repeat tonight all that has been said previously, other than that the ethnic minorities know that, should they encounter difficulties after the handover, their main concern would be their ability to come to this country, and that is already assured. As British nationals, they would be able to become British citizens after the normal period of residence.
I happen to be a proud parent who watched her daughter pass out as an officer from a military academy. I am happy to say that at the time I was watching she was in step, but I understand the point that my noble friend was making. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I spend a good part of every day answering his questions. He probably has the record in this House for asking questions. In fact I am doing some work on that at the moment. If he is not happy with my answers, and if I have not answered his questions, he should not be reticent in retabling the question or at least contacting me, because tonight is the first occasion on which I have heard that he was unhappy with my answers rather than not agreeing with them, or believed that I had been evasive when answering.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have difficulty about that. I gave detailed questions—too many, perhaps, because they were almost like a questionnaire—and to all of them, the answer was clear: "We will not publish criteria. What we have said is all that we will say." If that is not the position, and if the Government are willing now to publish the criteria, as they would in any other area of life relating to someone's status, so as to create what lawyers call a reasonable expectation that that would be the practice the Government would follow if that minority came under pressure, it would provide at least some real security and safety for that group.
I am sure that my questions made that perfectly clear. If I had thought that there was any hope of the Government doing so, I should have come back again. I am encouraged by the Minister's answer. If she is now saying that they will publish the criteria in more detail, then I am sure that the House would like to know that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the points I made were in response to two things that the noble Lord said. The first was that I did not answer the questions; and, secondly, that my answers were evasive. I merely said
1220
that it would have been courteous if I had heard that before this evening's debate because I should have gone back. Even if I receive a portmanteau of questions, I do not treat them as a portmanteau. Each question is looked at and is addressed in my answer.
I shall address the particular point. I understand what the noble Lord is saying. He is saying that he did not agree with my answers as opposed to saying that I did not answer. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the concessions that he did make, and which he made in a genuine attempt to address the concerns of those people, he said also that he did not agree that we should set down criteria.
It is difficult to be precise in writing about the criteria, which may differ widely. Pressure comes in many ways from many people. He said that, in giving them rights of residence, and ultimately over a period of time, citizenship in this country if they came under pressure, any attempt that has been made to write down the criteria always leaves out the possibility that something has been left out. If the criteria are set out it is difficult for them to be anything other than a guide. It was felt by the Foreign Office and by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he should not do that. It may be that the noble Lord believes that approach to be wrong, but it was a proper explanation. It was mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech, which I repeated on the first occasion when we discussed the Bill. We have referred to it in different ways as we have gone through the Bill and I cannot elaborate on that answer. I am not being evasive; I am saying that the view was arrived at that it would not be wise to write the criteria—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no suggestion whatever of any evasion or lack of clarity. The Government have simply said no, they will not publish criteria. That is the matter on which I ask my question and that is the matter which I find deplorable.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord said that I was not clear, that the answer lacked clarity and that in some cases I did not answer the question.
I too pay tribute to the assiduous efforts made by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke in trying to right what he and other noble Lords see to be a wrong. He is not unaware of the Government's view about the need for the Bill. Nevertheless, as is customary, the Government will not seek to stand in the way of the Bill passing to another place.
Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, the Bill passes to another place, which will not be unaware of the views of this House. As I leave the Dispatch Box on any issue I always report back to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I shall do so on this occasion.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, there is little more to say about the matter. We have gone around the course several times and I do not propose to do so again. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently and movingly in support of the Bill. I pay tribute in

1221
particular to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who has been a tower of strength and has helped me a great deal. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in his tribute to the late Lord Bonham-Carter, whose Bill this really is. We are merely picking up the baton where he unfortunately left it.
I thank my noble friend Lady Blatch, who has replied with great courtesy and clarity to all the points we have made. I am only disappointed that there is absolutely no sign of movement as regards the Government's position, which I find odd and disturbing. We have all said everything that there is to say and I ask the House to pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Liquor Licensing
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the representations made both by the licensing trade and 43 chief officers of police in England and Wales, they will consider a complete review of existing liquor licensing regulation.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must begin by declaring my interests. I am a former licensee in England; I am the owner of an hotel in Scotland; and I am a director of a number of companies with licensed premises. I have also served on a trade panel of the British Hospitality Association. Indeed, I am indebted to the association for much of the technical briefing which I have received for tonight's debate.
I thank in advance those noble Lords taking part in this short debate. I am pleased to see noble Lords who have a strong connection with the industry and considerable knowledge of the subject. I look forward to their contributions with keen anticipation. I am also particularly pleased to see that the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, is to make his maiden speech tonight. I am sure that his will be a splendid first contribution to your Lordships' House and I look forward to hearing it.
Liquor licensing legislation in this country is extremely complex and dates back to the early part of last century when socio-economic conditions and social custom in respect of liquor consumption were entirely different from those which exist in the latter part of the 20th century. The Ale House Act 1828 incorporated all of the previous statutes relating to the grant of licences. Between 1828 and 1910 a number of Acts were passed such as the Beer House Act 1830, the Beer House Act 1834, the Licensing Act 1842, the Refreshment Houses Act 1860 and the Wine and Beer House Act 1869 as well as licensing Acts in 1872, 1881 and 1902.
In 1910 the Licensing (Consolidation) Act reproduced licensing law in a simplified form, while at the same time correcting many of the doubts and anomalies which had arisen over the years. In 1914, during the First World War, the Central Control Board introduced emergency statutes restricting opening hours, largely to prevent munition workers from working in munitions factories while under the influence of alcohol. These were consolidated by the Licensing Act 1921, which
1222
removed the requirement for licensed premises to be closed during certain hours by substituting the system of permitted hours. These constraints were reinforced by the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Act 1934.
In 1949 a new Licensing Act was introduced containing numerous provisions which amended the law relating to licensed premises and clubs. In particular, it provided the licensing committees in the form of those with which we are familiar today. The Act also amended the law relating to permitted hours in various establishments and prohibited the employment in bars of persons under the age of 18.
The next major alteration was brought about by the Licensing Act 1961, which addressed issues such as types of licence, drinking-up time, special hours certificates and late night drinking. These were subsequently consolidated after the introduction of other pieces of legislation into the Licensing Act 1964, the provisions of which have largely remained in force to this day. However, significant changes in respect of afternoon opening and drinking-up time were further introduced by the Licensing Act 1988 in which the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, played such an important part.
I do not contend that simply because legislation has a long history and has been much amended by many different statutes over the years it is necessarily bad. In the case of licensing legislation, however, I believe that a strong case can be made to show that the result today is legislation that is no longer relevant to modern times, is unnecessarily complicated and involves a quite undue burden both on all branches of the licensing trade and on the authorities involved in dealing with licensing applications. It is a burden in terms of time and effort and it is also costly both for those applying and for those dealing with licence applications.
The reason I am today asking the Government whether they will consider a review of licensing legislation—and, indeed, why I urge them to do so—is because any examination of licensing legislation brings one to consider major points of principle within the legislation. I hope that the result of a review will be the introduction of a new licensing Act in tune with our times and appropriate for the new millennium. However, my Question asks for a review rather than for new legislation because I believe it is important that all those with a legitimate interest need to contribute to the framing of any new legislation.
It would, for example, provide an opportunity for those concerned with the problems of under-age drinking—a concern that is wholly shared by the licensing trade—to see whether improvements can be enacted.
The first objective of the review would be to establish the principles upon which legislation should be based. I would contend that the principle should be for the consumer to have the maximum freedom of choice consistent with the safeguards necessary in respect of public nuisance order and safety. Except where necessary for public nuisance order and safety, it should not be for the law to determine whether, where and when customers should have the right to purchase or

1223
collectively consume alcoholic drinks. Consumers must be treated as adults capable of responsible choice, as in other areas of consumer expenditure and leisure activities.
It should not be for the law or a licensing authority to make a judgment on whether there is a commercial need for a retail outlet for alcoholic drinks, as is the case under the 1964 legislation. Nor should it be for the law to favour one form of commercial outlet over another by the way in which they are regulated. The purpose of the law should be to establish a level playing field in competitive terms, and the decision on which retail outlets are successful should be for consumer choice based on the products and amenities on offer.
I should like briefly to touch on one or two specific points. The first is the question of permitted hours. So far as I am aware, no other developed civilised country has a system of permitted hours.
Let us assume that the principle is accepted that adult consumers should be able to obtain a drink at whatever time they wish. What could be the case for denying them that choice? There is no evidence of increased alcohol abuse being linked to extending the hours during which premises are open. Indeed, my own personal experience as a barman working in the north of Scotland in the old days was that when you advised people that there was 10 minutes to go before closing time there was a mad rush for the bar. As a result, I believe that people drink far more than they would otherwise have done. I contend that if that pressure did not exist they might well drink less.
However, a valid concern must be that in relation to noise and disturbance by persons leaving the premises late at night. I believe that a policy document has been sent to the Home Secretary. A report in Leisure Weekly states:
"they, that is, the Chief Officers of Police, say that if closing times were spread out it would reduce public disorder at 11 p.m., they suggest having different criteria for closing times so quiet country pubs could stay open as late as 3 a.m. but city pubs known for drunkenness would still have to close at 11 p.m."
I would contend that it is self-evident that if the closing times of pubs were spread so that people left them not en masse as they do now but as individuals or small groups as and when they wanted to leave, the likelihood of public disorder would be greatly reduced.
The second point on which I should like to touch concerns the manner in which the licensing of premises is undertaken. At present, justices grant licences at their absolute discretion; in other words, no one has a right to a licence. Although the licence is granted to the licensee, it is specific to a particular property. I suggest that the issues concerning people and those concerning property should be separated. At present, each time a manager who holds a licence leaves an hotel or a publican moves on, there is a complicated procedure by which the licence must be transferred to the new manager or licensee. That is costly and burdensome not only on businesses which have to go through that process but also on the court system which must administer it. Therefore, I suggest that licensees should hold a personal licence. That
1224
could be gained, perhaps, having attended a two or three day course which would provide the requisite knowledge. That could be administered easily by existing trade bodies such as the HCIMA or the Hotel Training Company.
Having successfully achieved certification, the prospective licensee could be registered centrally and, rather like a driving licence, could be issued with a licence for life or until retirement. If one of the conditions of the property was that it must be managed and operated by a qualified and certificated licensee, that would obviate the need, when the licensee left, for the full rigmarole of transfer to take place.
Properties are already inspected, irrespective of whether or not a liquor licence is requested, by environmental health officers, the police and fire officers and are subject to the same building regulations and planning procedure as other similar premises. Therefore, it must surely be possible to incorporate all the requirements which police and local authorities may wish to impose through the existing planning system without the need for a separate body.
That brings me to my final point. I have personal experience in England of the diversity of application of licensing legislation by different area licensing justices. There are numerous examples of different interpretations which magistrates in England and Wales and licensing authorities in Scotland make. Indeed, I was telephoned today by the British Retail Consortium, which represents off-licences, and it made that point. It is surely wrong that by an accident of geography an applicant for a licence may be dealt with in a different way. It must be right to have a uniform application of the rules wherever they may be throughout the country. Therefore, I hope that any review would consider whether the licensing justices in England and Wales and the local authority committees in Scotland are the correct way in which to proceed.
I have mentioned one or two areas which I hope demonstrate that there are points of principle within the existing legislation which merit a full review. I believe that the Government are not unsympathetic to the representations which have been made to them by various bodies within the licensing trade although it may be that there is more sympathy at the Department of National Heritage, which has responsibility for promoting hospitality and the tourism industry, than there may be at the Home office which would have the responsibility for doing the work. But I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some grounds for hope that the Government will at least consider a review.
In its strategy document on tourism, the Labour Party mentioned licensing and I believe that in general terms it accepts the need for change. I hope that my noble friend on my Front Bench will be able to confirm that my party accepts and supports the need for such a review. I look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Denbigh: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say how proud I am to become a part of this House and to be able to continue its traditions. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for giving me the opportunity to make by maiden speech on this Question and I beg a few moments of your Lordships' time.
I know that in recent years we have seen several reforms in the licensing laws but, in essence, they have remained relatively constant since the First World War. While I can understand the need for restraint at this time, there has been a marked movement away from large numbers of people working in and around the munitions industry. Is it still relevant to enforce those laws, with only a few changes, and to take them into life in the 1990s and further into the millennium?
The Licensing Act 1988 went some way to redress that problem by removing the necessity of a break between the lunchtime session and the evening session. I must admit that I was at college in Bath at the time at which that legislation came into force. The greatest change that I noticed was the removal of the Pavlovian impulse of, on hearing the last orders bell, everyone rushing to the bar to order another drink, often only minutes after having bought a drink in the previous round. Of course, we were left with a great moral dilemma: after the drinking-up period, should we leave the best part of a drink or not? My Lords, we were students. There was no way that we were going to leave any type of drink after having parted with, at the time, a vast amount of money from our meagre funds.
That was a source of great contention among our tutors as, occasionally, we were slightly the worse for wear during afternoon lectures. When the new laws came into place, the sense of urgency was somewhat removed as we could always return to the pub after lectures. However, we did go to the library to finish our work.
When I decided to make a speech on this subject, I spoke to quite a number of licensees to try to gain their perspective on this matter. The most overwhelming response was to ask why the matter had not been reviewed before, especially for Friday and Saturday nights. Those nights are extremely popular for people to relax after the stresses and strains of the week. It is often the time at which people meet up with friends and enjoy a night out. Is it too much to ask that the licensing laws should be relaxed to extend opening hours to midnight certainly on Friday and Saturday nights and perhaps during the remainder of the week as well?
I worked as a manager for a security company for several years. On many occasions, my staff did not finish their work until ten or eleven at night, which prevented them from enjoying a quiet drink in the pub after they had finished. Had the pub been open until midnight, they would have been able to enjoy a quiet pint, relax and trundle off home. It would have meant slightly less disturbance and noise outside the premises because they had rather loud voices and, having been denied entry to the public house, they would discuss loudly where they should go. Several times, windows were raised and they were asked to move on.
1226
The question of disruption and noise, if the premises are allowed to open until midnight, will, I feel, not be any greater than at the present time. Not everyone who is in the bar at 11 o'clock will stay until midnight, so the departure times will be staggered over a longer period of time, which will cause less noise than the mass exodus of the entire clientele at the end of the drinking-up period. Surely that would be a help rather than a hinderance. I realise that there are those who feel that this proposal will lead to excessive drunkenness, but were not those same fears expressed about the changes which allowed pubs to open all day? That mass intoxication has failed to occur. If we allow an extra hour of time, I am sure people will use it wisely.
I am aware that not every premises would look forward to the proposal. I agree that there are certain locations that should not, perhaps, be open until midnight. If licensees had to apply for permission to remain open until midnight, not all would apply, because some of them would simply not want the extra work or hours. Also it would be possible to deny the extended licence for reasons of noise or disturbance after a trial period if the situation warranted it. The premises would then revert to the 11 o'clock closing time, thus eliminating any problems arising from midnight closing.
If we allow deregulation of the licensing laws for public houses, should we not also look at nightclubs, the majority of which are licensed until 2 a.m., thus giving a three-hour difference between them and the pubs? If public houses are allowed to remain open until midnight, to a degree that will mean that nightclubs will be losing out on an hour of their business. Yet, if they are allowed to alter their hours in line with those for public houses and remain open for another hour until 3 a.m., any previous loss of earnings can be compensated for. It will also mean that there will be little disruption to present business practices of such premises.
While I realise that not all local authorities may be in favour of these possibilities, it will still be a matter for them and the licensing justices to review and approve the extended hours on a discretionary basis. Perhaps a two to three month trial licence might be issued with a review at the end of that period. The review board could be made up of representatives from local authorities, residents from the neighbouring areas and owners from the clubs and could discuss any problems arising from noise and/or disturbance from extended hours. That would seem a fair and just method and one that would be largely self-governing.
I have no business interest in the deregulation of licensing laws, but many businesses will benefit from it. The staff of such places will see a slightly higher wage packet at the end of the week thus buoying up the feel-good factor. Moreover, as regards their clientele who, for whatever reason, patronise public houses or nightclubs, can we really stop such people from using their leisure time as they wish? I thank noble Lords for their time and indulgence.
8.53 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it falls to me, with great pleasure, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Denbigh on behalf of the whole House on his splendid maiden speech. I notice that my noble friend's title comes from the 17th century and that his family settled in the same part of England for nearly 400 years. I find that quite fascinating as someone whose background has been wholly nomadic. What is particularly encouraging is the fact that my noble friend has chosen to speak about the virtues of deregulation in his maiden speech. It is a valuable and important subject and, indeed, it is very encouraging for someone who is coming towards the end of his time to know that this great cause will be carried on in the future: my noble friend has youth on his side and long may he speak in this House on the subject!
I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for introducing the subject. In fact, following yesterday's publicity, I was particularly encouraged to see that he was fully clothed tonight when he came to address the House. The point about the noble Viscount's speech is that he is on the right lines. He is entirely sound not only, if I may quote,
"in body, mind and soul".
Indeed, he gave us an excellent summary of the progress of legislation on the subject. Moreover, he is quite right.
I must also declare an interest in that I am patron of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain. It is a purely honorary position but one in which I take an enormous interest because the association is at the cutting edge of improvements in catering. Indeed, it has contributed enormously to creating improvements in the standard of food in restaurants and in the standard of service by ensuring that both are of the highest quality. Therefore, the association has a considerable interest in the proposed deregulation.
As I have spoken on this a number of times, it will be no surprise to the House when I say that I would be in favour of total deregulation. Having heard the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and his great history of the progress of legislation going back to the last century, one realises that there is a great deal of need for reform. I hope that we can make some progress in that respect. However, I realise that total deregulation is perhaps a Utopian wish. Coming from the background that I have, I have always believed that the only hope for progress is to advance by limited objectives.
Tonight I want to mention three areas where I hope we can make some progress. The first has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount; namely, the matter of personal licence certificates which would allow licensees to transfer freely between licensed premises without the time and cost currently involved. Licensees who had obtained a personal licence certificate could transfer between premises within the same category without the restaurant having to return to the licensing authorities. That, of course, is a terrible waste of time, but obviously it is quite simply to ensure that there are proper safeguards to make sure that nothing goes wrong.
1228
The second area that I should like to cover is the question of supper hours certificates. To a certain extent that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Denbigh in his fine maiden speech. Restaurateurs would like to see an extension of permitted hours for drinks served with meals to midnight on weekdays and until 11.30 p.m. on Sundays, without the need for a supper hours certificate. At present, it is exceptionally rare for any of those consents to be refused. But, of course, there is an awful lot of bureaucracy to go through. Therefore, restaurateurs, who are very busy people, are wasting a great deal of time applying for a licence extension for a supper hours certificate which they nearly always get.
I have a question which I wish to put to my noble friend the Minister. Can she say whether, in order to achieve such extended supper hours certificates, a Bill would be needed to reform the law or could it be done by regulation? I mentioned the matter to my noble friend before the debate began and I hope, therefore, that she will be able to give me some information as to how we can proceed and achieve an extension of supper hours certificates. Can my noble friend tell me the way to go forward in that respect?
The third area that I should like to cover concerns extended hours orders—known as EHOs. At present, restaurateurs face two obstacles to obtain such an order to serve drinks with meals until 1 a.m. First, they have to get the supper hours certificate to which I have already referred; but, secondly, they also have to provide some form of live entertainment. Many restaurants neither want to cover that cost, nor do they think that it is appropriate to provide live entertainment. Moreover, there are many consumers who want to go to restaurants to have a quiet meal and a drink and who do not want such live entertainment. So resolution of the problem with EHOs is necessary to provide greater consumer choice. I hope that that can be achieved.
Obviously all these measures are designed to create better conditions for consumers. Indeed, consumers are very important. The whole of the restaurant and catering industry is one of our country's major industries, not only nationally but also internationally. People now come to Britain to eat in restaurants, which is something that they would not have considered doing 30 years ago. In fact, they would have gone anywhere in the world to avoid it. But now they come here because of the high standards. Therefore, anything that we can do to simplify matters both for those who work in the trade and for consumers would be much appreciated.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I am delighted to be here this evening and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Denbigh on his excellent maiden speech. His late father was a very special friend. I considered myself lucky to be one of his friends. I know that he would have been immensely proud if he could have seen his son here tonight; and I am delighted that his mother is present to witness the occasion. I am sure that we can look forward to many excellent contributions in the future.

1229
I wish to add my voice to the congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I nearly addressed him as "my noble friend". I recollect that when the noble Viscount made his maiden speech on a Question that I introduced in your Lordships' House he very nearly called me his "noble friend" and was put right at the last moment. It is difficult when one has friends sitting opposite. It is necessary to consider the licensing laws. I am glad that the noble Viscount has introduced the Question in your Lordships' House tonight.
I should declare an interest in the subject as president of the Master Chefs of Great Britain, owner of Porters Restaurant in Covent Garden, and a committee member of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain. More particularly, I chair the licensing subcommittee of the restaurateurs association. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Montgomery has spoken so eloquently on our behalf. Our brief to him was obviously excellent. I, too, shall touch on some of the same subjects.
It is no wonder that visitors from the Continent are still bemused by the British licensing laws—for instance, by the weird anomaly that it remains illegal for a restaurant to serve a drink to a customer who is not eating even if all the others at the table are. Surely there should be some simple way around the problem without the restaurant having to go to the extent of applying for a full on-licence.
However, we seem to have a strange attitude to laws and legislation in this country as we build them up into a big mountain. Then, when we realise that there is a need to reform the system, instead of demolishing the mountain and rebuilding it from scratch, we merely erect or remove a few pimples on the top of it thereby creating a gradual process of change rather than properly addressing and tackling the problem.
Admittedly, as mentioned by other noble Lords, there have been many positive changes towards a freer system. I refer to the removal of restrictions on afternoon service of alcohol in pubs and restaurants, and child licences for pubs. Nevertheless, much more still needs to be looked at.
There is a pressing need for a full review of the present licensing laws. Perhaps I may urge on the Government that it would make greater sense to start with a blank sheet of paper and try to create an ideal new system rather than merely tinker with what already exists. Unfortunately, as a sensible realist, I know that that will never happen. So let us at least look at some of the practical possibilities that could be considered by the Government.
There should be greater flexibility over licensing hours, closer to reflect the reality of the area that a particular business is in. I well remember being in Australia some 25-plus years ago. At one period drinking-up time in Australia was 6.30 in the evening. People did not buy single drinks; they bought lines of drinks in order to get in as much drink as possible before 6.30. The most dangerous time to drive on the roads in Australia was between 6.30 and 7.30 in the evening. Other noble Lords have touched on this point. It is one of the problems. If one imposes an unnatural limit one has problems as a result.
1230
Perhaps I may refer to restaurants. As my noble friend Lord Montgomery mentioned, it would be sensible to allow an extension of permitted hours, possibly to 12 o'clock for weekdays and 11.30 on Sundays, without the necessity to apply for a supper hour certificate as it is exceptionally rare at present for that to be refused. I refer to removing the requirement to have live music in order to gain an extended hours order as most restaurants do not wish, or are unable, to provide live entertainment; it is normally costly and impractical. The restaurateurs association believes that this proposal would lead to increased choice for diners as customers wishing to enjoy a quiet drink with a meal later in the evening would no longer be obliged to visit only restaurants where music or dancing is provided.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Montgomery, referred to a system of portability for licence holders. It would save considerably on the time of the courts and the cost to the applicant. Put simply, if an individual has qualified as a licence holder in one place, he should be accepted automatically as a suitable person if he moves to become a licence holder elsewhere as long as it is the same category of licence.
One point has not been mentioned. I refer to the situation over tables and chairs outside premises. It is exceedingly confused, with different rules applied over the country. To take one laudable example, the position is extremely simple in Brighton. If the highway authorities approve the scheme, it goes through automatically and at little cost. At the other extreme, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea takes a very different view. One has to deal with three separate bodies; and once one has successfully jumped through all the hoops the borough further levies a large annual fee based on the number of table and chairs.
It would make great sense to have one unified system operating throughout the country by developing an outdoor eating consent licence which would allow one application to be submitted for planning permission and highways consent. That could be coupled easily with a change to the restaurant (Part IV) licence to enable an automatic extension to the liquor licence when restaurants receive the appropriate planning/highways consent, allowing alcohol to be served with meals in the external area in question.
I hope that these eminently sensible suggestions for simple reform can be looked at urgently by the Government, as it seems that progress in these matters is exceedingly slow.
Our foreign earnings from tourism are huge and growing, as are the contributions to the Exchequer and towards job creation. These changes would make Britain a friendlier place to visit instead of being somewhat confusing at the moment, and would lead to further improvements in image for our now very successful restaurant industry. That improvement is rather amazing when we consider that, in the main, the transformation has taken place only in the past 20 years. By making sensible changes to our licensing laws, let us ensure that we continue that progress as well as producing the two

1231
other very positive benefits: first, of reducing the burden on court and police time; and, secondly, of bringing down the cost to applicants.
9.8 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Thurso for giving me the opportunity of doing so. I do not think that he and I disagree fundamentally. I am very glad to have him on these Benches. On the many occasions on which I have spoken on the subjects of licensing and alcohol I have been a lonely figure here. I hope that I shall not throw any cold water on what has so far been a very amiable debate—made even more amiable by the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, who gave us his experiences as well as some dry wit, which is very welcome in this House. I should like to add one historical point; namely, that the first Lady Denbigh and the first Lady Falkland, some 400 years ago, were close friends. It has nothing to do with this debate, but in the present climate is worth recognising.
Few noble Lords would disagree that in the United Kingdom alcohol, where it is misused, can have serious consequences for the health of those who misuse it and also for those, often their families, who suffer some of the consequences. My authority for speaking is as deputy chairman of the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse. It must be remembered that, apart from the ill-effects on the health of an individual of drinking too much, too often and sometimes too quickly, a great deal of harm is done; for example, in cases of domestic violence, cruelty to children, sexual assaults, drink driving and other forms of unlawful behaviour brought about by the mood-changing characteristics of alcohol. It must be remembered that alcohol is as much a drug as other illegal substances.
Recent proposals by the Home Office to amend aspects of licensing law were made somewhat piecemeal with a view to deregulation or, in some cases, specifically to help the tourism industry. Given that licensing is an important plank of any strategy to temper the harm that alcohol brings, deregulation and simplification processes should not be viewed in isolation.
I think it is agreed that there is room for improvement in the current legislation in order to create a more streamlined and comprehensible set of laws. However, while a review of licensing legislation may well provide an opportunity to improve current provisions and strengthen their ability to temper alcohol-related harm, there is a risk that, by focusing predominantly on the importance of deregulation and lightening the burden on business, an overhaul of current legislation would lead to over-relaxation of an important strand of public health policy among other matters.
Most of us would support any measure that could be shown to reduce alcohol-related harm. It is perfectly possible that a major review of current law such as that suggested by my noble friend could achieve a more responsible approach to drinking while also meeting the
1232
requirements of tourism and other business. But concerns about alcohol-related harm need to be given equal weighting with business and tourism concerns throughout any review process, by seeking, for example, the views of organisations such as alcohol service providers as well as residents' associations. I hope the Minister will reassure me on that matter.
A report based on a study last year by the all-party group showed that the majority of people in this country who are over 25 avoid city centres during weekend evenings. That point was referred to indirectly by the noble Earl in his excellent maiden speech. They fear the alcohol-related violence and the intimidation that often occurs in city centres. It affects their quality of life and the quality of life of those who live there. An overhaul of licensing regulation could provide a welcome opportunity for addressing that under-reported scandal by looking much more at the rigorous and consistent enforcement of laws, with more promotion of existing successful models of community safety initiatives; and there could be statutory requirements for magistrates considering licensing applications to be given information about arrest statistics at or near licensed premises.
Much of the current debate about Britain's archaic licensing laws, well enumerated by my noble friend, and their impact on tourism is mistakenly focused on the need to provide access to licensed premises at any time in order to create the sort of 24-hour drinking city that exists in other European countries. Heavier drinking at weekends is a well-established pattern of drinking in Britain, I am afraid. It is true to say that this pattern is not commonly experienced in other European countries, particularly the Latin ones such as Italy and France. They have much longer opening hours than we do. Most of us would welcome measures which would move us somewhat nearer to the continental pattern of cafe society, though it is unrealistic to expect that to be duplicated or even to expect the relaxation of licensing hours alone to bring about a cultural change of this kind.
Instead, changes to licensing laws need to be considered as only one element of a wider strategy to change the more destructive patterns of binge drinking, which was referred to and which is embedded in British culture, and reduce the alcohol-related harm. Encouraging places where alcohol is consumed to become less alcohol-focused and instead to place a greater emphasis on non-alcoholic beverages and food and enabling them to become more family friendly would move closer to the European situation. Ways of achieving that could include incentives to reduce the cost of soft drinks and hot drinks which in many areas is exorbitant. Guidelines could be included for magistrates on applying consistent criteria in granting children's certificates.
The management of drinking venues was referred to by my noble friend, as well as the staffs understanding of how alcohol works and how to deal with potentially difficult situations—always part of the work of a licensee. These are important factors to be considered in creating a safe and comfortable drinking environment. Measures to achieve that include requiring managers to hold a recognised and relevant qualification—again

1233
referred to by my noble friend—such as the British Institute of Innkeeping standards, and the promotion of server training schemes such as that outlined by the United Kingdom Server Training Group.
Finally, whatever licensing laws Britain has, enforcement is the key issue in ensuring that they succeed in doing the job for which they were created. Licensees have a crucial role in applying the licensing laws. Their ability to do the job is of paramount importance. Few would object to an overhaul of the licensing laws provided that the key aims were to ensure that the laws continued to have a strong content to temper alcohol-related crime.
In relation to amending the laws, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that as well as reducing the burden on business—a very desirable aim—and on tourism, the Government will continue to see the importance of controlling alcohol-related harm. Like many other areas in our life, it is a question of balance.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, may I from these Benches add a voice of congratulation to the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, on his maiden speech. He spoke clearly from a wealth of experience and has done a considerable amount of personal research. May I also join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for giving the House an opportunity to consider the issue of a complete review of existing liquor licence regulations in the light both of the Home Office consultation document published last May, which proposed a limited extension of permitted hours, and also in the light of a subsequent call by the Association of Chief Police Officers for a complete overhaul of the system.
As already said, our licensing laws stem from Victorian times and were introduced in the main to deal with the Victorian gin palaces. They were designed to send the mothers who were hell-bent on ruin back to their families and were based on the premises that the longer people had the opportunity to drink and the more places they could obtain drink the more they would drink. That desire to tell the people what is good for them and to seek to dictate personal private morality through legislation is one Victorian tradition which has still not altogether died out in public life to this day.
Intoxicating liquor is, of course, potentially dangerous and its sale and distribution, especially to young people, has to be controlled. There is no doubt, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, drink can and does destroy lives. Misuse of alcohol by others causes misery to those who live in close proximity to drinking establishments and also to the police and the hospital services who have to deal with its abuse.
As a young barrister, I sat on many occasions in the Thames magistrates' court in east London waiting for my case to come on. The first hour or so each morning saw a procession of men of indeterminate age—almost always men—who had bright red, bloated faces and who, it was obvious, were poisoning themselves to death. The charges were invariably "being drunk", "being drunk", "being drunk", and just occasionally
1234
"being drunk and indecent". The penalty was invariably £1 or one day. The remainder of the court list would consist of offences of violence, of theft or of criminal damage, a high proportion of them alcohol-related. It seemed to me as I sat there, and it still does, that the licensing laws as they exist have not done much to protect such people or those affected by their activity.
Time has moved on but alcohol continues to play a significant part in much of the crime—especially violent crime—which comes before our courts. Even in 1997, with the law as it is, as others have observed, the streets of our cities at and just after closing time in the areas of pubs and clubs are often unpleasant and frightening places to be. It is perhaps significant that it is not gin-sodden mothers who cause concern, but too often groups of young people who are the worse for drink—sometimes under-age young people.
Despite the tinkering which has taken place over the years, our licensing legislation has become hopelessly complex and in many ways outdated. While I welcome the Home Office consultation document, it is really looking at the tip of a large iceberg which needs to be examined in depth. Others have indicated that our licensing laws are far too complex. They form a maze through which the true path at the moment can only be found by taking the guiding hand of an expensive lawyer. How else can any restaurateur, shopkeeper, landlord or event organiser hope to negotiate the minefields created by on-licences, off-licences, special hours certificates, restaurant certificates, residential licences, special permissions, restoration orders, protection orders, extensions, and the rest, let alone grapple with the complexities of who is and who is not a fit and proper person or negotiate with the police, the fire authorities and all the other myriad of interested parties who so often play a part in expensive applications? Surely the time has come for a thorough review of all the legislation and an update and modernisation of it.
Far from causing more trouble as was feared, the introduction of all-day drinking seems to have cut down trouble. One standard closing time appears to be a flashpoint for trouble as people cram in the last permitted drinks and then spill out on to the streets together. Deregulation of the licensing laws which would stagger closing times and possibly lead to all-night cafes and bars on the European pattern would certainly avoid the danger times shortly after 11, and again later when the clubs close, which cause the police and hospital services so much difficulty.
Licensing laws must provide protection for the local community from public disorder, noise and nuisance. Local communities are entitled to be consulted and have their views taken into account. It must be right that the requirements are going to differ greatly from the inner city to the country village. Although in theory standardisation of the law is a good idea so that people do not travel from A to B to obtain another drink, the law must be flexible and allow for regional variations as the communities require and deserve.
Licensing laws must also protect those who are the most vulnerable. That in particular means the young. There is general concern in many areas in regard to the

1235
way our law works at present, not least the extent to which under-age drinking takes place with apparent ease and the way in which young people appear to be the specific targets for some of the products.
In addition to a review of the law itself, about which others have spoken, perhaps I can echo what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, regarding the need for further education in relation to alcohol, which is largely neglected until serious problems in individuals occur. Schemes which try to deter under-age drinking, alcohol related education, and pilot schemes to provide sensible drinking advice to the young as well as new ways of enforcing the law on under-age drinking are required. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the Government have such ideas in mind.
The question of staff employment also arises. That should be mentioned at this stage because it is key to any extension of licensing hours. There are genuine concerns that undue pressure may be placed on employees to work long hours without either suitable remuneration or protection. There must be adequate safeguards to protect those people and, above all, to ensure that safe travel home is available when they finish work. Those are all matters that need to be considered in an overall review.
As for the rest of us, perhaps it is right to say that the time has now come for the law to allow us, on the whole, to make our own decisions about where we have a drink and when. When those whose job it is to administer the legislation and to maintain the law tell us that it is outdated and ask for a complete review and deregulation, we should surely both listen and act upon their advice.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Denbigh has passed with flying colours the daunting experience of making a maiden speech. It was a speech of warm humour and it was interesting and informative, no doubt as a result of the research work to which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred. We look forward to hearing much more from my noble friend in our future debates in this House.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for the excellent way in which he introduced the debate on such an important matter. I mused as the noble Viscount was speaking and as I looked around the Chamber I was not only impressed by the age range of those present but I was also rather disturbed by the thought, first, that, should the proposed reform of the House be enacted, only four noble Lords who are life Peers would be present—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the Deputy Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and myself—and, secondly, how much poorer this place would be without an hereditary presence.
The question being debated goes to the heart of the present liquor licensing laws. It is perfectly true that there have been calls in recent times for a substantial revision of the licensing legislation. Those calls have come from a variety of sources concerned, in one way
1236
or another, with the licensed trade. Some people take the view that nothing less than a total overhaul and major restructuring will do. A fundamental overhaul of the licensing system would be a very large task. That is not to say that it should not be tackled at the right moment. But the Government's priorities have been focused on achievable and deliverable measures for which the industry has told us there is a pressing need.
Let me set out for the House the Government's achievements on licensing deregulation measures which have been brought into effect. They include abolishing the compulsory afternoon break, allowing all-day opening on Sundays, the introduction of children's certificates, the extension of off-licence hours, the regularising of Sunday off-sales, the introduction of provisional special hours certificates, the removal of the anomaly of the lost summer time hour and getting rid of the archaic long pull offence.
A deregulation order which will allow apprentices of 16 and over to work in bars is in the second stage of its parliamentary scrutiny. The order has been amended to meet points raised by the parliamentary committees and by the industry, and we confidently expect to bring it into effect by the spring. Many firms in the industry have long felt at a disadvantage in competing with other industries for the best new talent. This initiative will give them a level playing field for recruiting able young people with a future in the industry.
A deregulation order to extend the availability of occasional permissions—for school fetes and charitable events to sell alcohol—is in the first stage of parliamentary scrutiny. The proposals are for a relatively modest increase in the existing system, which we are satisfied is a reasonable and justifiable relaxation of the current restrictions.
The Government consulted during the summer about proposals to streamline the arrangements for transferring licences between individuals. I am happy to say that we received a very constructive response. We propose to lay before Parliament next week a draft deregulation measure to give effect to these proposals.
Perhaps, in the context of deregulation, I should mention Sunday dancing. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill of my noble friend Lord Astor to modernise the law in this area received its Second Reading on 15th January. If it becomes law, the Bill will remove the absolute ban on commercially-organised dancing on Sundays imposed by the Sunday Observance Act 1780. I very much welcome my noble friend's initiative, and I wish him well in it.
It will be apparent from what I have been saying that the Government have been extremely active in the liquor licensing field. As I mentioned earlier, I recognise that there are calls for us to do more. But I strongly suspect that in the nature of things there will always be calls of that kind.
One consideration which should be kept at the front of our minds is that, in matters of liquor licensing, the radical approach has seldom proved successful. There have been major reviews every few decades; for example the Royal Commission of 1929 to 1931 and the Erroll Committee in 1971-72. None of those led to

1237
major changes in the law. This is a clear indication of the fact that licensing is a controversial subject. It has been controversial throughout the centuries, and it remains controversial today.
The Erroll Committee took an extremely thorough look at every conceivable aspect of the system in the early 1970s. It concluded that a major overhaul was needed. Among many other things, the committee recommended that pubs and off-licences should stay open until midnight; that local authorities should have an effective veto on the granting of a licence for premises; and that the drinking age should be lowered.
The outcry against the Erroll Committee's recommendations made it clear that they were unacceptable, and we have only recently been able to introduce some of those proposals. But even now they can cause controversy.
More recently, the Government tried to amend the law on commercial dancing on Sundays. The thinking behind the deregulation measure, which was considered in 1995, was that social conduct in the closing years of the 20th century ought not, in principle, to be regulated by legislation passed in the 18th century. Nevertheless, Parliament decided that this was a bridge too far at the time.
Those two examples across a quarter of a century illustrate that there is a difficult course to steer between proposing change which is acceptable and that which is not—a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. It is important that we keep the law under review to ensure that the balance is right. We do not believe in restricting people's private lives for the sake of it. Where restrictions are necessary, we need to consider whether they could now operate in a more limited, targeted way, so as to control potential social problems without unnecessarily constraining the interests and tastes of the responsible majority.
The Government's guiding principle is that people should be allowed to spend their leisure time as they choose, provided that they do not harm the interests of others. We are very conscious of the need to strike the right balance between the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of individuals. The present licensing laws are in place to ensure that responsible adults can drink in safe and orderly conditions, without harm or inconvenience to others, or risk to the welfare of young people.
A number of points were raised during the debate and I shall refer to some of them. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to relaxing permitted hours. I believe that he would like to dispose of them completely. But the police view is rather a radical one; namely, that there should be extensive relaxation in licensing hours. They share the view of the noble Viscount because they believe that many of the problems associated with, as we know it, "chucking out time" would be resolved if premises could close at their own discretion. I am not sure that the people of this country are quite ready to accept the so-called "24 hour city approach". However, the Government will continue to take careful notice of police views on licensing matters.
1238
My noble friend Lord Denbigh referred to extending Friday and Saturday hours. Last summer the Government consulted on proposals to extend the normal closing hour on Friday and Saturday night from 11 p.m. to midnight and on whether to extend opening times for nightclubs. Both proposals attracted a large number of conflicting views and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary announced only last week that further work is needed before proceeding.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to separate licences for persons and premises. We are aware of the calls for such a system and we are keeping split licensing under review. I do not know whether the noble Viscount knows that such a change would require primary legislation. We could not deal with it in any other way.
The noble Viscount also referred to the complicated transfer procedures with personal licences and qualifications. I have much sympathy with what he was saying. The Government are generally sympathetic to easing the process of transfers. They hope shortly to table a deregulation order which would allow multiple names on licences and the quicker granting of licences to new people. The main trade training body, the British Institute of Innkeeping, has established national licence certificates, as the noble Viscount knows, which are being adopted increasingly by the trade and taken more and more into account by the licensing justices.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery referred to supper hour certificates. The Government are considering a proposal from the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain to abolish supper hour certificates which permit the sale of alcohol in restaurants for an additional hour beyond the end of normal licensing hours. Officials have discussed the proposal with the association and will be consulting representatives of the courts and, of course, the police. Again, we think that that is likely to require primary legislation, but shall consider the point in more detail.
My noble friends Lord Montgomery and Lord Bradford referred to removing the requirement for entertainment for a restaurant to qualify for extended hours. We are looking into that as part of the public entertainment review.
As on a number of previous occasions, my noble friend Lord Bradford referred to drinking in restaurants. As he knows, restaurants are in business to sell food. They are allowed to sell drink as an ancillary activity in return for which they have less stringent licensing conditions than the pubs. If they want to sell drinks on their own, they need to be licensed in the same way as other establishments which do that. I know the point that my noble friend is making. He believes that there should be an all-embracing licence which allows people to sell food, food and drink, or drink. Perhaps I may reflect on what my noble friend has said and report back to the Minister in the department with responsibility for this.
My noble friend Lord Bradford also referred to tables and chairs outside premises. That is a sight increasingly seen in this country. Again, we recognise that local discretion and responsibility can lead to different patterns and decisions. We have noted the remarks about

1239
the relationship with planning and highways consents. We have had some discussions with the Restaurateurs Association and are expecting further details of its proposals. Again, we shall consider them carefully when we receive them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, put a little balance into the debate. I agree that this is a very important issue which must be addressed when considering any significant change in the area of liquor licensing. The noble Viscount referred particularly to health concerns, overseas patterns and family atmospheres. I agree that national customs differ. Any changes we bring forward must be suited to the circumstances of the United Kingdom. I know that the licensed trade is keen to encourage family atmosphere and is taking many steps within the current law, such as providing more food and a more professional standard of service. I know how seriously the trade is taking that.
I noted the very important point about under-age drinking which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I fully recognise the point made by the noble Viscount, who emphasised the way in which the licensed trade is keen to see the incidence of under-age drinking being properly addressed. Much is being done and we shall continue to be vigilant in this area.
I very readily accept the point about education which was raised by the noble Baroness. The question of alcohol abuse is being addressed through the national curriculum. We will continue to look at ways of strengthening the means by which that educational message can be conveyed to young people.
I referred earlier to the fundamental question of what society at large would find acceptable. Many issues relating to liquor licensing give rise to controversy. In some cases people's concerns about change may be unjustified or unrealistic; in other cases there will be real grounds for their objections based on actual experience.
I refer back to the question of education. Legislative action is not the only way forward. Schools, colleges, the youth service, and the point that I made about the national curriculum, all have a role to play in encouraging young people to develop a responsible attitude to alcohol consumption. Young people need to learn to make sensible choices, not just in this area but in the area of drugs and many other areas, about whether and how much to drink and how to resist persuasion and pressure. We were reminded of the kinds of persuasion and pressure that could be exerted by some of the licensing restrictions.
1240
The Government may propose changes and business may support them but they need to command sufficiently widespread support if they are to be successful. In recent years there have been great changes in social activities. There is a significant body of opinion that supports the liberalisation of the drinking laws beyond what we have already achieved or are currently proposing. But there is also a sizeable part of the population that is very concerned that further relaxation of the law should not go too far. It is of critical importance that changes which help business are balanced with proper protection of our citizens. I do not believe that what I say is inconsistent with much that has been said in the course of this debate.
For these reasons, we believe it is important that the Government take a balanced approach, always weighing one interest alongside another. This debate has underlined the need for that balanced approach. The Government will continue to consider suggested changes in the law, whether of a general or specific kind, in the balanced way that I have described. Both I and my department will continue to keep under review all aspects of the licensing law, and that task will have been assisted by the contributions to this debate.
The issue between us is whether we stop what we are doing and go back to the clean sheet of paper referred to by some noble Lords. We believe that if we do that valuable time will be lost, because we are in the process of looking at some of the matters that licensed traders are begging us to consider and we want to get on with that work.

Architects Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.