Lords Sitting of 29 April 1998

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

European Parliament: Elections
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, with regard to the form of proportional representation to be used in European Parliament elections, they have decided on the closed list system, in which the preferential order of candidates is chosen by the party, as opposed to the open list system, in which preferences for individuals are expressed by the voters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, (Home Office) (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we believe that the simple regional list system, for which the European Parliamentary Election Bill provides, is the most appropriate way for Great Britain to elect its MEPs. Following representations, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considered the arguments for adopting a Belgium-style system which would allow electors to vote either for a party list or for an individual candidate on a list. However, after detailed consideration he concluded that that type of system had a fundamental flaw—that candidates with the most personal votes would not necessarily be elected—and that, on balance, it was right to keep to the system provided in the Bill.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, can he tell the House how he justifies the use of the word "appropriate"? Does he not agree that what is being proposed is the very antithesis of parliamentary democracy as we know it in this country? How can he defend the election of MEPs by region and not constituency, involving millions of voters but with the individual voter having no chance at all to vote for an individual? Does not the Minister come to the same conclusion as myself that that has only been done in order for the Government to get rid of a few splendidly difficult "Old Labour" MEPs? They may well end up in your Lordships' House, but that is hardly a basis for constitutional reform.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, most of the splendidly difficult ones are behind me at the moment! The European Parliament is quite different in concept and operation from our Parliament and therefore different considerations obtain. It is utterly different from the Westminster system. We believe that we ought to have a regional list because, significantly, European affairs are determined in the context of regions. We believe that being able to vote for a party list is a
286
reasonable opportunity for the voter. The noble Lord indicated that some people may not be able to vote for the candidate of their choice. That may be why Mr. Winston Churchill and Mrs. Currie have been excluded from the Conservative parliamentary list of available candidates.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does it not breach a fundamental constitutional principle to detach the party and the candidate and to preclude the opportunity for the voter to vote for a specifically named candidate? In turn, will not that cause confusion when different systems are introduced for the election of the London mayor and for elections in Wales and Scotland? Should not there have been a thoroughgoing debate in both Houses of Parliament and in the country at large before such a massive change is made to our constitutional system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not agree. It is quite a different system. We already have a different system—which has worked well, most would say—in Northern Ireland for European parliamentary elections which is not the Westminster model. However, there has been every opportunity for consultation. The Home Secretary invited representations. He also commissioned public opinion research polls which indicated that people would feel discontented if the person with the largest number of votes was not elected. Perhaps I might point out that on "first-past-the-post" systems, the voter has no choice at all of choosing an alternative candidate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as none of the noble Lord's Back-Benchers seem to wish support him on this issue, perhaps I may ask if the Minister noticed the huge success for PR achieved in the Saxony-Anhalt elections on Sunday, where the minority extremist party, by the use of PR, gained a major foothold in the parliament there? And is not my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry right that the closed list system is the tool of control freaks running the Labour Party who do not want anybody on the list whom they cannot control and with whom they are not in full agreement? I refer to people like Ken Coates, Hugh Kerr, Alex Falconer and Michael Hindley. They can be tippexed out by the party opposite. Will the Minister finally agree that, while that may be all right for the Labour Party, it is not a good enough reason for constitutional change of the kind being envisaged?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned Mr. Coates and others but did not seem willing or able to respond to my perfectly legitimate inquiry about the future wellbeing of Mr. Winston Churchill.
Of course PR looks after minority parties. We have specifically done that in the Government of Wales Bill. The Conservative Party—a minority party—gained 20 per cent. of the votes and no MPs. We believe that with 20 per cent. of the votes, they ought to have 20 per cent. of the representation in the Welsh assembly. We believe that is a fair system. After all, if we put

287
candidates to voters, we must sometimes contemplate the voters having a different view from the one that we would necessarily have.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister clearly pointed out the special circumstances of the European Union elections. Would it be fair to assume from that that there is no possibility of contemplating a party list system for domestic elections in this country?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as is well known, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is presently engaged with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton in reviewing possible alternatives. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish me to pre-empt any decision made on any recommendation which may come from them.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me on what I hope he will regard as a perfectly legitimate inquiry. Is he aware of the fact that reports have appeared in the continental press in the past few days that M. Jacques Chirac, the President of France, has stated that his government are contemplating abandoning the closed list system for the European parliamentary elections next year and substituting the Westminster model, subject only to the provision of a run-off in the event of no candidate achieving 50 per cent. of the poll? If these reports are accurate, is it not a grave discourtesy to the noble Lord that M. Jacques Chirac should not have told him of this before the noble Lord last week quoted France as one of the major reasons why this country should adopt the system that was abandoned in France for the presidential elections and which the French Government are now contemplating abandoning for the European elections?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that President Chirac wanted to get in touch with me last night but I had gone out; and he did not leave a number. I can only say that I was not aware of the foreign press. I never read the foreign press except the Western Mail.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, not for the first time, may I recommend loaded lobby voting, which is the only way of producing a completely representative system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when one looks at the hereditary component in your Lordships' House, one has a perfectly loaded lobby.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, after we have seen how the first election turns out, and in the light of the comments made in your Lordships' House today, will the Government be prepared to reconsider the matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no earthly reason why any system of representation or non-representation should not be reviewed if your
288
Lordships wish to do that. If after three or four years the system was not working well, I am sure that one of your Lordships would put down a topic for debate and we could then address the issues as they had turned out to be.

Trade Unions: Recognition in the Workplace
2.45 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parksideasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from organisations, companies and individuals opposing trade union recognition at the workplace.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the Government have held discussions with both the CBI and the TUC on the implementation of the manifesto commitment on union recognition. The Government have also received a number of other representations on union recognition, some in favour of introducing a statutory right to recognition and some against. The Government are holding further consultations on the issue and will publish their proposals in the forthcoming White Paper on fairness at work.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting and informative reply. Does he agree that any question of trade union recognition in the workplace would best be resolved by a secret ballot of those employees in that workplace? Does he further agree that any suggestion that abstentions should be regarded and counted as votes against recognition would be utterly unacceptable?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, strong views are held on this issue by both the CBI and the TUC. I think it would be wrong, in advance of the publication of the White Paper, to take any pre-emptive position on any of the points raised by my noble friend. I know that he feels very strongly about this issue, too. What we are seeking here is an approach based on flexibility on the part of both sides, and including the Government, because this issue ought to be decided on a partnership basis if it possibly can be. That is our approach and that will be reflected in the White Paper which will be issued before the end of the first half of this year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's sentiments about this. It is a very important topic. It was, if he can remember, satisfactorily resolved as between the employers and the employees by the machinery of the Act of 1971. It was one of the few parts of that Act that worked satisfactorily. Could that be taken on board in an effort to find not the same resolution—it is too complex for that—but a similar one?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we have, of course, moved on a good deal since 1971. Any positive

289
suggestion for reconciling the parties concerned would be positively welcomed. One of the positive things that has emerged from the discussion so far is the wide area of agreement. What we are now considering is one of the few difficulties standing in the way of agreement. But the identification of points of common interest is rather remarkable, and I alluded to that when I last answered a Question on this point.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in the light of his previous answer, and in the light of the comments about what happened in the early 970s, does the Minister agree that these issues are far more complex than the press are currently acknowledging? Is there not a danger that, in the current climate, issues of significant principle may be turned into disputes over arithmetical formulae as to the percentages of votes? What is the Government's position with regard to what are clearly complicated issues which in the 1970s were often resolved more by voluntary agreement in the workplace than by these arithmetical formulae? Does he agree that this is a complex issue which requires much greater consideration than it is currently being given in the press?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, under the guise of complexity the noble Lord has introduced a very simplistic argument. Of course, he is right when he says that this matter is shrouded in complexity. There are very strongly held opinions on both sides. Of course, the Government would prefer an approach based on a voluntary agreement reached between the parties, but whether that is capable of being achieved remains to be seen. We are still confident that further common ground can be identified and that a positive result will be achieved in these negotiations. That is what we are seeking to do and we are doing our best to achieve it.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, do the CBI and the Government agree that only an acceptable alternative, in a legal form, to the traditional way of securing recognition will he appropriate in these circumstances? Does the Minister acknowledge that in practice the most effective way of securing recognition is by ensuring that the employer enters into collective bargaining, hut, if he refuses to do that, that his employees decline to work except on terms and conditions that have been agreed? If no acceptable form is found in legislation, then do the Government acknowledge that that will be the only way open to trade unions? Will the Minister ensure that blame is not laid at their door for the failure of employers to be more sensible and reasonable in this discussion?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend is very well qualified to enter this debate because his work in practice as General Secretary of the TUC was quite outstanding in bringing parties together on a voluntary basis. It did not always work, but he certainly used his best endeavours. The noble Lord raises a lot of separate questions in his intervention. I do not believe that I can go further than this at this stage: as a result of the deliberations that have taken place so far, the parties have unquestionably moved closer together in a large number of quite contentious areas, and that is good.
290
Whether in fact we can bridge this particular gap on recognition remains to be seen. I am still confident that that will be possible.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer and a parliamentarian of great renown. Can he offer us an opinion as to whether he considers the wording of the party manifesto contained any ambiguity which could have caused distinguished leaders of the trade union movement and the Prime Minister to have reached apparently completely contradictory views?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord tries so hard to flatter me into submission, I shall resist it. It was very interesting that Mr. John Edmonds, in an interview this morning, said that it was not true that he was being very critical of the Government. He said that it was inappropriate to make criticisms of the Government at the moment. He showed that the Government were in fact using their best endeavours to arrive at a settlement. However much the noble and learned Lord was trying to dress up his question as a positive contribution to this debate, I must say that I thought it was imbued with mischief rather than with hope.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thought that I had. Anyway, if I have not, the question was incapable of answer because it was not really on the ball.

Bull Bars
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoullasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on the control of the use of bull bars on private and commercial vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, last October we announced the launch of a consultation process on the options for national action on bull bars. That process closed at the end of last year. There were about 250 responses to the consultation document and we are currently considering the appropriate way forward.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for her reply and recognising that to achieve a 100 per cent. ban is a complex matter, does she agree that, in view of strong public opinion in favour of ridding our roads of these lethal accessories on vehicles, to start by tackling part of the problem is better than tackling none of the problem?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments of the noble Earl, who has had a long-standing interest in this area, and for his

291
recognition that it is a complex matter. That was reflected in some of the contributions to the consultation document. But as the noble Earl pointed out, there was overwhelming support for taking all possible action. I am personally anxious to make progress in this area.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, have any of the consultation documents revealed whether any bulls have actually been fended off by these elaborate instruments?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is not here today to tell us of her Australian experience. However, she usually tells us that bull bars were originally roo bars. I can certainly say that no kangaroos have been warded off by bull bars. In the responses to the consultation a point was made about legitimate agricultural off-road use of vehicles with these accessories. That is one of the areas of complexity that we have to take into account, if we choose to do so, in drawing up regulations that will be generally accepted as reasonable.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any progress has been made in Europe on this matter? She referred to that the last time this subject was raised, which I believe was last June, and particularly to a Dutch proposal. Can the Minister say whether this matter is going to be made a priority of the United Kingdom presidency in the transport field? Can she say, if a national solution is sought, what is there to stop anybody importing a vehicle with bull bars from a European country? Will that be covered?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the European convention is yet another of the complexities that we have to deal with. If a whole-vehicle type approval has been given to a vehicle at European level, then we shall have to recognise that approval. The issue is what we can do at a national level in terms of vehicles which are not imported. The noble Lord referred to the issue on a wider front and to the European pedestrian protection directive. That would be a much broader way of tackling the needs of vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. There has been some progress in that area. Through the Transport Research Laboratory, the United Kingdom is involved in refinements to the technical content of the proposal. We are very keen to assist the Commission on any aspect of that work. Discussion of that directive is continuing, but we accept that the implementation date is some way off. That is why I am anxious to make what progress we can at national level.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, if I heard the noble Baroness correctly in her initial reply, I believe that she said that 250 replies were received. If that is correct, can the Minister advise the House what that represents in percentage terms and whether the Government are happy with such a seemingly very small response?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards the number of consultation documents that were sent out, the
292
percentage of replies was about 25 per cent. The experience of other Ministers shows that that figure is not out of line with the response rate on consultations in particularly technical areas, which do not, in the main, get large numbers of responses from individuals. However, I have seen correspondence from individuals; very often they are people who have had relatives involved in these kinds of accidents. Sometimes we have had correspondence from medical staff who have had to deal with the consequences.

Asylum Appellants: Representation
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Flatherasked Her Majesty's Government:
What public provision is being made in 1998–99 for asylum appellants to be legally represented at the hearing of their appeals when they are unable to fund such representations out of their own resources.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a total of £5.9 million is being made available in 1998–99 in grants to the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre to provide representation to asylum appellants. It is not a condition of these grants that the representation should be by legally qualified advocates.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, does that figure include the £500,000 which has been made available to the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service for the past two years specifically to meet the needs of asylum seekers who had their right to income support withdrawn? Is the Minister aware that it is because of pressure from the noble Lord's Benches and the present Home Secretary when he was Shadow Home Secretary that this sum was specifically made available for that purpose? There are 5,000 appeals in the pipeline at the moment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it does not include the £500,000 to which the noble Baroness referred. The £500,000-worth of extra grants was specifically given as spend-to-save grants. Both organisations were told that the grants were for that purpose. There is core funding of £5.9 million, which will be an increase of 3 per cent. on last year's core funding.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that 25 per cent. of asylum appeals conducted by the Immigration Advisory Service are successful, as against the national average of 6 per cent.? Does not that indicate the advantages of competent representation? If such appeals are not conducted by the IAS, can my noble friend suggest anywhere else where appellants can find competent representation? How would that accord with our obligations under the refugee convention?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Immigration Advisory Service represented

293
1,538 appellants last year. The Refugee Legal Center represented 8,154 appellants. Those organisations have a body of experience and expertise. I would not want your Lordships to think that there was inequality of arms because last year the Home Office was not represented by counsel at any appeal hearing—that is, during the whole of 1997. Non-legally qualified persons from the Home Office appear while people with experience and expertise (from both the IAS and the Refugee Legal Centre) appear on behalf of appellants. I do not think that our contribution is unreasonable in that context.
Lord Henley: My Lords, while I accept that it is right that people should have some form of representation, legal or otherwise, at such appeals, does the noble Lord agree that the best way of reducing the costs and the number of appeals would be to reduce the number of those who seek asylum, bogus or otherwise? Will the Minister confirm that there has been a steady decline in the number of those seeking asylum since 1995, and that it has been even more marked since 1996 following the various reforms that were made to the social security system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one needs a decent balance—both words are important: "decency" and "balance"—between allowing fair consideration of a claim which may or may not be legitimate and clogging up the system and burdening this country with those who have no legitimate right to, or expectation of, asylum. I repeat that the Home Office's contribution is not unreasonable in all the circumstances.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the IAS referred to dealing with 4,000 extra cases in the years 1996–97 and 1997–98 on the basis of the extra £500,000 grant that it had received? Does the noble Lord accept that cutting that grant aid would result in at least 5,000 appeals not receiving the legal advice which is offered by the Immigration Advisory Service? How can the Minister reconcile that with his own party's manifesto which referred to asylum seekers being dealt with swiftly and fairly?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that there is any contradiction. The question relates to appeals. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, phrased her question precisely—deliberately so, I imagine. It refers to legal representation,
"at the hearing of their appeals".
That is quite different from informal or formal advice which may be given to a large number of people who may never appeal. The figures are not comparable.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, is it correct that the report of the Government's comprehensive spending review into asylum seekers has been in the hands of Ministers since February but is not to be published until July? Does my noble friend agree that in this country's noble tradition of welcoming genuine asylum seekers it is wrong and unworthy that so many of them are having such a tough time and that they are not well represented when they should be? Will he
294
assure the House that the review will be published now and that it will certainly not be published after both Houses of Parliament have risen in July?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know when it is proposed to publish the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review. I do not think that it is right to say that those who prosecute appeals in the asylum system are not properly represented. Both organisations are well experienced. The Home Office is not legally represented. I would have thought that that represented reasonable equity.
On the more general point, I agree with the noble Lord that those who seek asylum must be treated decently. Equally, one must recognise that not all those who seek asylum, and not all appellants, are genuinely entitled to what they wish. I understand their desire and I sympathise with it, but that is not the regime that we operate in this country.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, given that the Government's review is awaited—we hope that it will be published in July and I am concerned by the suggestion that it might be even later—is not this a strange time to withdraw the special funding for the Immigration Advisory Service to which my noble friend Lady Flather referred? I am sure that we have no doubt about the Government's good intentions in this matter in general, but would it not be much wiser to maintain the funding until we have heard the results of the review, can debate it and take matters from there?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. I repeat that the spend-to-save funding was specifically time limited. Both organisations were told its purpose; namely, spend to save. They understood that perfectly well. There was no ambiguity about the position. I repeat that the core funding will be increased by 3 per cent. over the 1997–98 levels.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Government at least accept that there is a feeling on all sides of the House that the conclusions of the spending review have been delayed for too long? Thousands of refugees are waiting for answers about their benefits. Will the Minister, through the Home Secretary, do his utmost to speed up the process?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point, but I do not think that the date of the publication of the CSR has any direct or, indeed, other relationship with the benefits being looked for by asylum seekers. The Question relates to asylum appeals. I believe that we offer a decent service by the funding that we give.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

295
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Viscount of Falkland set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Earl Russell to one-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government of Wales Bill
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Government of Wales Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 22,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 23 to 29,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 30 to 75,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 76 to 106,

Schedule 5,

Clause 107,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 108 to 111,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 112 and 113,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 114 to 126,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 127 and 128,

Schedule 10,

Clause 129,

Schedule 11,

Clause 130,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 131 to 141,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 142 to 145,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 146 to 152,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 153 to 159.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conservation and Tourism
3.7 p.m.
The Viscount of Falklandrose to call attention to the case for a balance between the conservation of our cultural and environmental heritage and the commercial imperative of tourism; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion suggests—some may disagree—that a balance can be struck between tourism and the national imperatives of getting income from tourism and the conservation of heritage, whether nationally or globally. It is probably
296
difficult to maintain that balance, but in this debate I am seeking to suggest that the scales of that balance now swing frighteningly towards the imperatives of tourism to the cost of conservation.
This matter has been in the news lately and has caused much concern in many quarters, nationally and globally. It is timely that I have been successful in persuading the leader of my party on these Benches—I did not really have to persuade him—to allow me to have this debate today because the Government have recently come up with some initiatives about which we shall hear further from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Most of us who were born before the end of the Second World War find the changes that have taken place in tourism remarkable. Nowadays young people take it for granted that at a young age they will go away on foreign holidays or take years off to prepare themselves for their time at university. Air, rail and road travel have all improved to such an extent that we all take it for granted that we can travel great distances quickly to visit other countries.
When I was a young man there was a currency limit. I recall first travelling to France at the age of 17—it is very old by today's standards—when there was such a limit. I hardly spoke English during the time that I was there which meant that I was able to learn French rather more rapidly than might have been possible today.
Nowadays, global tourism is growing to a point where it is becoming a threat to the very attractions to which tourists travel. It has become a real problem. The problem extends as far as the Himalayas, the Caribbean, the less populated coasts of South America and the Indian Ocean. I read in a recent article that it had become such a problem on one of the main trails in the Himalayas that it had become known as the "Andrex trail" because of the amount of litter upon it. Its real name is the Sagamantha Park. That is an example of the kind of problems faced by governments.
The Galápagos islands will become extremely difficult to reach if tourism continues at the level that has been maintained for the past 10 years. None of the rare species and other attractions of those extraordinary islands will be available for people to visit in future. The same holds good for islands in the Indian Ocean, rain forests and other global attractions.
The counteraction to the awareness of global pollution caused by tourism, if I may use a rather emotive expression that has been used usefully in the past to draw attention to the problem, is the introduction of the concept of eco-tourism. That is a term that I do not particularly like. To me it sounds like a marketing man's slogan to get over a problem by maintaining the present level of tourism under a different label in the hope of making as much money as possible quickly before it is stopped either by attractions being closed by governments or by those attractions no longer being there.
I was made aware of some of the disadvantages of inconsiderate travel in the early 1970s when I went to Africa. People travel to parts of East and West Africa in particular because they seek the sun as well as other

297
attractions like game parks, and so on. When I went there in the 1970s on business—I had to take control of a small business in which my company had an interest—I had an office in Mombasa. Your Lordships will be aware that Mombasa is on the coast of the Indian Ocean very near a well known resort called Malindi. In the early 1970s German travel agents began to pay a great deal of attention to the east coast of Africa, to the extent that tour companies began to invest in hotels and so forth. One day I saw a German brochure. I spoke sufficient German to understand what it said. The front cover carried a very attractive photograph. The photograph showed the dim figure of an African on the beach in the moonlight. Under that was written, to my horror. "Come and meet your African Adonis". This was an invitation to German women—I hope on their own—to go to Africa to find Africans. This is the kind of sex tourism to which perhaps noble Lords do not normally give much thought.
We are all aware of the terrifying growth over the years of visits to the Far East for the purposes, unhappily, of procuring young people for sex. In this House we have good reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who I see in his place today, for fighting long and effectively against participation in this appalling trade. Every country has its own view about what is and is not acceptable. But in this case German ladies were emboldened to find these men who were usually waiters in hotels. The African may be perfectly willing in a friendly way to agree to any arrangement, in particular if it involves a rise in his pitifully low standard of living. It is easy enough money. It was reported to me, accurately I believe, that one of these German ladies was so emboldened by her success on the beaches of Mombasa that she attempted to make the same arrangement with a Masai tribesman but was not successful. I do not believe that that is to be recommended even for the most intrepid tourist. That is one of the disadvantages of travel apart from the effects on game parks and animal life in Africa.
In countries with more cultural attractions (if I may put it that way) the potential damage to great monuments is considerable. About 10 years ago the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, made a speech, which was widely publicised. He was accused, unjustifiably, of over-stating his case. He referred to tourist pollution. That expression, which I have used in the past, had been used previously by the Mayor of Venice. The noble Viscount, whose writings on Venice are probably well known to noble Lords, was particularly concerned about that city. But he extended his remarks to other problems including those in these islands. He drew attention not to my story about Africa but to other areas of tourist blight.
As far as concerns European tourism, I remember first going to Spain in about 1960. I went with a film company to Alicante which greatly impressed me. I wanted to go back there. Your Lordships will know that it is an ancient town with very attractive mosaics in the streets skirting the sea, with a dusty old bull ring, and so forth. It was a favourite place for film location companies. It was next to a village called Benidorm. Soon after that Benidorm was developed. Similar development took place in a large area of Spain. That
298
development was the only way that Spain could dig itself out of extreme poverty. It was done quickly and effectively. However, the damage caused by indiscriminate building and infrastructure for tourism along the coast of Spain was, I suggest. a model for other countries which followed in a more discerning and discriminating way. This is an example of the kind of damage that can be caused by ill-considered tourism.
France has been quite successful in its tourism. After all, like most other European countries tourism makes an important contribution to the economy of that country. France is twice as large as the United Kingdom and has a similar population. It has an enormous number of attractions, many of which were, coincidentally, listed in Le Figaro yesterday. But France is beginning to have the same concerns as the United Kingdom.
I turn quickly to the British problem. The problem is quite evident if one simply walks across St. James's Park at midday. I do so frequently. As I have said in previous speeches, I am a great admirer of St. James's Park. If one stood on the bridge in St. James's Park on most days it was one of the most beautiful places in England. However, I suggest that it is not now one of the most beautiful places in England, even though the tulips are out in the magnificent gardens and the weather is with any luck quite good. One now has floods of tourists coming through the Channel Tunnel. In the old days tourists met under the clock at Victoria Station. Now they tend to meet on the steps of Westminster Abbey. Westminster Abbey has been under a great threat for some time. That was something, again to which the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, drew attention. Westminster Abbey has introduced charges to try to lessen the threat to the fabric of the abbey caused by the sheer number of people visiting it. Of course that is a threat not just to Westminster Abbey but to other cathedrals.
My part of the world is Devon, and I think of Exeter. It is a wonderful, ancient city with a beautiful cathedral. Its fabric is particularly vulnerable as it is built of a soft stone. In my view—other noble Lords may dispute this—too much assistance has been given to those who wish to develop our towns for visitors and tourism to provide injudiciously sited car parks and shopping centres which are, to say the least, down market compared with examples in other European countries.
Your Lordships' House has had debates about Stonehenge. I waxed long and, I hope, eloquent, about the disgraceful state of Stonehenge with its terrible fencing, and so on. I am now beginning to think that it might be better to leave it like that, because if we attract great numbers of people there, do we have the ability to protect those great stones and monuments against the kind of damage which we can expect?
Many noble Lords have houses which are open to the public. Everyone knows that if you open something to the public you have to take careful note of what needs to be protected and where you are going to allow people to go. You have to take out insurance. There are all kinds of problems associated with it.
The subject is an interesting one, and I could go on for ever. Noble Lords are probably glad that I cannot. I am hoping to open the subject to your Lordships. I am

299
grateful that so many noble Lords have put their names down to speak, because we shall hear a number of views—perhaps divergent views. My noble friend Lord Thurso will put another view from mine. The view for Scotland will be put by my noble friend Lord Glasgow. I cannot cover Scotland within the limits of the time allowed me.
Adele Biss, former chairman of the British Tourist Board, said, quite rightly, and I should have done the same had I been in her position:
"Much needed revenue for conservation comes out of tourism. So don't let's knock it".
It is not forthcoming from other sources, I say pointedly to the Government Front Bench. The balance needs to be taken into account. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords and to the Minister's response. If we do not succeed, apart from everything else, what shall we leave behind for our descendants? I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on choosing this subject. It could not be more timely. Just this past week I read that the number of tourists expected to travel the world is anticipated to double in the next 20 years. With their 635-seater aeroplanes, the airlines are now getting ready so that we can all get around with the minimum of discomfort. That is important, because it is already beginning to become uncomfortable to get around.
We should not worry about that. We should realise that market forces respond to all those pressures, and I would expect them to. We in this country have always been enlightened about what will happen in tourism. In 1969, we had more foresight than many countries when we passed the Development of Tourism Act which enabled us to build a great many hotels in London, which were welcome.
It is time for us to have another deep look at the subject, because of the numbers involved. We should try to get out of the numbers game and get into the money game. It is the quality of tourists that is important. Although it may sound indecent, what we want is the spend. It is all very well to be packed to capacity with people who only have enough money to send a postcard saying that they have arrived safely; we want those who will get out and about to see our lovely country and wonderful heritage, take advantage of it and pay for all the wear and tear that they cause.
Having said that visitors should pay, I am puzzled that in this present IT age, when we can have freedom passes for so many things, we do not seem to be able yet to provide them for our children, all those in education, all those who, for one reason or another, cannot afford to pay, and those who are suffering hardships, or make some arrangements for families. It is not a question of whether or not we charge, the issue is what we charge.
During the Recess I was in Russia. I went first to Moscow and then to St. Petersburg. I hasten to tell your Lordships that I am not here to spread propaganda about Russia, but I found it safe. I found the thoughts that
300
I have voiced echoed in the way that they behave towards tourists. We all had to pay to see the priceless attractions in Moscow and the wonderful, magnificent things that there are in St. Petersburg. How necessary that is in St. Petersburg, because they do not have our London problem. They have the earlier problem. Their income is in a parlous state. It is safe there, but not if one is driving a vehicle. That is due to the state of the roads. They do not have enough money to maintain the roads. It is important for them to have tourists. It is an example of where tourism needs to be encouraged, because we have heard examples of where there are sufficient tourists.
We should be nervous about the prospects for London. We should have a firmer policy of seeing London as a gateway. A decision has just been taken which makes me a little sceptical as to whether we are thinking these things through. The sum of money which the English Tourist Board makes available to the London Tourist Board is no longer going to go to the English Tourist Board; it will go directly to the new authority which is being set up to run London, which will be responsible for its own marketing. I have no doubt that it will do a great deal to bring more and more tourists to London. We must see London as the gateway to the rest of our country. The British Tourist Authority, of which I am a past member, and the English Tourist Board, of which I am a past chairman, had a policy of dispersing the tourists to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. That is something we should look at again.
I live in Oxford. Tourists are a problem to Oxford. They are on their way to Blenheim and Stratford-upon-Avon. They come in all their coaches. The coaches park. Out the tourists get. They are absolutely everywhere. They have barely time for a cup of coffee, and perhaps not even for that postcard to which I referred. So we should not be surprised if Oxford City Council starts talking about what it can do to curb tourists. They are an inconvenience for the people of Oxford, and offer no compensating reward. We shall find that in other cites of great historic interest.
Where do all those extra tourists come from? One wonders whether we shall travel more and more. All the forecasts say that we will. We all take it for granted that it is no surprise to find a great number of Japanese tourists on our streets, but we can expect great numbers from India, China, and other places with large populations, including South America. Someone needs to sit down and seriously think about how we are going to accommodate great numbers of tourists; how to avoid any inconvenience; and how we can obtain substantial earnings from them.
The London Convention Centre is doing a marvellous job. The American Bar Association is to have its next meeting in London. That means that more than 20,000 lawyers will come here to confer and will spend a great deal of money. That is an example of the good work which the convention centres are doing. There are many markets to tap, apart from the coachloads of people who come here but do not spend much money.
We have magnificent treasures, but our greatest treasure is our language. It is one of our finest assets. It enables people to come here in comfort to enjoy our

301
theatres, to read the newspapers and to visit all the sights which can be explained to them in English. However, I wonder whether the exhibits in our museums are sufficiently visitor friendly. Many people who come to this country cannot readily speak our language and may be put off by the small signs which are difficult to read. There is a case for museums showing more sensitivity towards the people who are sufficiently interested to come here and explore.
The prospects for tourism are great and they will sustain our heritage. That is a good reason to nurture tourism.
3.31 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, first, I would like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for bringing this important subject to your Lordships' attention. Secondly, I must declare an interest as president of the Wrekin Tourism Association, owner of Porters Restaurant, chairman of Weston Park Enterprises, a committee member of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain and president of the Master Chefs of Great Britain. I would also like to express my appreciation for the common sense attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, in his approach towards tourism.
What is mainly flat, mostly green and contributes around £26.2 billion to the Exchequer every year? Answer: tourist Britain. The major draws are heritage, history, business, shopping and the countryside—though not necessarily in that order. Yet, heritage and landscape can be literally "loved to death"; threatened by the very multitudes which come to appreciate them.
So how can the conflicting demands of tourism and the environment be reconciled? I will attempt to set out some of the problems and suggest some of the solutions, not forgetting that almost literally our country's economic future is at stake, as tourism is Britain's second largest and fastest growing industry. In fact, by the start of the next millennium, tourism will be the world's largest industry. Britain, particularly given its relative size and lack of consistent weather, has been performing reasonably well. But by comparison with Europe and the rest of the world, our figures have been gently slipping for some time.
The fact is that spending money on tourism promotion is not like other forms of government expenditure. It is an investment that demonstrably pays off. But even with the present figures for incoming visitors there are very real problems. As a consequence of increased numbers, it is becoming blindingly obvious that in certain areas of Britain some constraints are required.
Tourism must become environmentally sustainable, sensitive to the problems that can be created, both for the locality and the people who try to live normally in it. Examples of unsustainable tourism are now legion; for instance, the traffic nightmare in London, sometimes approaching a near gridlock situation outside the most popular attractions at the busiest times, caused mainly by the huge seasonable influx of coaches full of day trippers.
302
Another simple case is the erosion of the paths in some parts of the Lake District or the Peak District National Park. Many historic towns—Canterbury, Oxford, York, for instance—are finding that severe strain is being put on their infrastructure and services, thereby causing inconvenience and annoyance to native and visitor alike. The fact is that the majority of foreign tourists visit Britain for a slice of authentic history and tradition. Therefore, if what they want has to be the genuine article, it is inordinately difficult to recreate that in any way.
Most leading attractions like the Tower of London or St. Paul's have finite maximum numbers that they can accommodate at any given time, first, to control damage but, secondly, to ensure that all the visitors enjoy a happy rather than an overcrowded experience.
A major drawback with ever greater numbers coming to London is trying to differentiate between those who bring positive economic benefit and those who merely clog up the streets. It is interesting to note that whereas there used to be plenty of free attractions in London, now most have started charging. Surely, this must be considered a positive step, as we must not merely raise numbers but concentrate more on increasing those that fall in the higher spending category. Coaches full of day visitors from across the Channel, arriving with their packed lunches and an itinerary of mainly free attractions, could actually end up costing the country more than they bring in. Possibly airport tax should equally be applied to those entering through the ferry terminals and by Eurotunnel, then at least the country would be assured of a contribution towards the infrastructure costs generated by the influx of "cheaper" travellers.
Certainly, it is also important in this context to ensure that visitors are more evenly distributed throughout the country. Many places are currently tackling the difficult dilemmas created in environmentally sensitive locations or simply where existing facilities are under strain. By effectively, but fairly, limiting the numbers of visitors while increasing the amount that they spend they not only maintain funds for upkeep but also manage to reduce the consequent rate of deterioration.
Cambridge City Council, for example, has persuaded accommodation providers to offer a considerable discount to people who are staying for more than just one night. This encourages them to provide a more significant financial yield, instead of coming merely as day trippers or overnight and therefore contributing little to the area.
We must continue to concentrate on one immensely important and fast growing sector of the market; the business or incentive traveller. There are two main reasons why we should target them; not only are they less seasonally oriented—most valuable for spreading the load—but also their spend tends to be higher, often substantially.
Now that we have added to our range of available facilities for the business traveller—for example, the National Exhibition Centre and the International Convention Centre, both in Birmingham—we are better

303
placed, but we should certainly not be complacent as we are lagging well behind many of our leading competitors.
While it is critical to boost the business travel market, we should also try much harder to persuade normal visitors to look at moving around the whole of the British Isles, and particularly to reduce their concentration on staying solely in London, which unfortunately is perceived as being "Britain" by so many.
It is particularly vital, therefore, that we find effective ways to attract more people to parts of the country which actually have plenty of room to entertain and indulge them. Immediately we come up against a logistical problem as all the major gateways into Britain are in the south east; and where you commence your trip has an enormous influence on where you go. Heathrow and Gatwick are so dominant among the airports, while Dover and Folkestone occupy a similar standing as ferry terminals. Now we have the significant effect of Eurotunnel, too.
There is a constant—and I feel misguided—call to expand the size of the two main airports, with many fundamental reasons being cited. America enjoys a much happier position, where throughout the eastern seaboard there are many different, widely spread airline hubs providing a superb choice, and meaning that their reliance on New York is much less than ours on London.
Unfortunately, until we evolve and develop perfectly viable alternatives—for instance, Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick, Cardiff and Belfast—and get them to the critical size where they can provide a similar range of services, the situation will continue to influence the geographical mix of tourism very strongly and put ever greater strain on the south east.
Despite this concentration on the south east for ingress to Britain, there are numerous examples of extraordinary regional success. Commentators are mightily impressed by the achievements of Yorkshire. Incidentally, before any possible accusations of parochial self-interest are levelled at me, I am not choosing Yorkshire or Bradford as an excellent example of effective tourism promotion because of any family connection. My title "Earl of Bradford" is taken from the Hundred of South Bradford in Shropshire, where we still live.
When Bradford decided to enter the holiday market in 1980, it was treated as something of a joke. What could a northern industrial town, with declining traditional local industries, possibly have to offer the visitor? Yet Bradford was actually blessed with a number of natural attractions—Haworth, home of the Brontë sisters; Saltaire model mill village and other fascinating Victorian industrial buildings. Its economic development unit initially targeted the travel trade by launching two themed "short-stay" holidays, which generated—partly because the whole premise seemed so unlikely—considerable publicity and sold very well. Bradford had made its mark. The Bradford area now draws more than 6 million visitors a year, worth
304
somewhere around £120 million to the local economy, all created in such a comparatively short time by an imaginative approach.
As president of the Wrekin Tourism Association for the last 16 years I have seen first hand the enormous impact that success in attracting more tourists—created mainly through innovative promotion and unselfish co-operation, aided by a consistent and progressive attitude from local government—can have on a region. Tourist expenditure in the Wrekin has leapt from around £3 million in 1980 to £54 million in 1995.
What has helped in the tourist sense is bringing old buildings into use. The Landmark Trust and the National Trust have brought old buildings back into use and have created a tourist facility while protecting the old buildings.
In conclusion, my summation of the overall position is that we must attempt to ensure that we are not left out of the boon to our economy generated by tourism, by guaranteeing continued and increased investment in international promotion. We must look at developing more gateways into Britain. At the same time, in certain very popular locations, we must take care that tourism is to the advantage of both the local population and the environment as well as the Treasury.
We cannot afford to create a position where the patient ends up on the critical list because our efforts at tourism promotion have achieved such resounding success, purely in terms of numbers without the accompanying—and most necessary—increased spend, that our limited amount of "real history" suffers at the hands (or more probably the feet) of the trampling hordes.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Viscount for raising this important topic. As he said, it is a problem of an increasingly affluent society with more time on its hands—a five-day week, longer holidays, earlier retirements. If one adds to that the two technical revolutions of incredibly cheap air travel and the flexibility of the motor car, it makes a fairly potent brew.
Commercial imperative or not—and I see it as much more than a problem of the commercial imperative—people want to travel. They want to visit, and it is now very easy to do so. We should welcome that. We should welcome it because it means that it brings economic activity to places, and hence communities, which would otherwise not have much going for them. Many stately homes are kept going only because of the visitors. Many rural areas depend on tourism.
But it can be overdone. I believe that it was Professor David Bellamy who coined a notable phrase when he referred to the danger of somewhere being loved to death. Therefore, we are back to our old friends: sustainable development, the problem of externalities—hidden costs which are not paid for by anyone—and the problem of demand management.
The Minister kindly drew my attention to a recent document issued by his department, Tourism—Towards Sustainability. It is a consultation paper which takes the

305
form of asking 16 rather searching questions. I suspect that some of them are not readily answerable. I should like to have seen some questions asked which were not asked. Nevertheless, it is an important step forward and I congratulate the Government on it.
The first question referred to:
"How we should measure progress towards achieving sustainable tourism. Which specific indicators can be used most effectively within the UK for this purpose?"
Therefore, we are back to some more old friends: targets, monitoring, performance indicators and so on. I am afraid that the answer to that may be rather messy because some things which are important cannot be quantified. There is then the old problem that concentrating overly on the quantifiable can mean that we miss other factors which are much more important. Then again, there is the problem of adding apples to oranges. And on other occasions, the problem is not really one of sustainability.
In my view, an important way forward is the concept of "carrying capacity" or critical load; that is, how much pressure a particular place or thing can take before it becomes seriously damaged. It seems to me that that is a useful starting point in determining balance. Problems tend to be rather ad hoc and site specific so that careful judgments are usually required. One returns to the difficulty, or even impossibility, of meaningful measurement or aggregation. Moreover, the problem is often not one of commercial pressure; it is often one of conflicting but desirable objectives. When I was with the National Trust, I found that the problem with open spaces was not just access versus the farmer but a whole range of factors: access, farming, nature conservation and often archaeology.
Access itself is a far from simple issue, and I am not just thinking of the right to roam. Some years ago, the trust set up a working party on the problem of access. I thought that it was a question of dealing with farmers and walkers. But that turned out not to be the case at all. We listed 31 different uses of our National Trust properties for recreational purposes. Some of those purposes are quite incompatible with each other. Therefore, that is the sort of issue that I suspect the Minister's department will have to tackle but on a much wider canvas.
I mention briefly three examples which illustrate those more general points. First, I refer to the use of time-ticketing systems which we introduced at Sissinghurst Garden, which is a very delicate property. It was not just to deal with the total numbers of visitors to the property but to deal with the peak numbers on a Sunday afternoon when quite disproportionate damage was being done to the garden. We successfully introduced time-ticketing to regulate the flow.
Two lessons can be learnt from that. The first is that if there is a time-ticketing system which involves people waiting, you must provide some other attraction while they are waiting, otherwise you will have a dissatisfied public. Secondly, in many cases, if you can manage the peak, you can accommodate more visitors throughout the year.
306
Secondly, in the national parks, considerable damage is done—and the noble Earl referred to this—by the sheer volume of feet. Footpaths have to be prepared and new ones created. The National Trust now spends £0.5 million per year just on footpaths.
Then there is the provision of car parks. How big should they be? Should they be used to ration numbers visiting a particular attraction where there is a critical problem? The answer is often yes. But coupled with that is the problem of providing a car park which is acceptable on landscape grounds. It can be quite helpful to provide park-and-ride facilities. That has been very successful in two areas of the Lake District. Those are all ways in which one can manage load.
What general conclusions can one draw from all that? I would list four. First, in determining carrying capacity and striking a balance, one can only be pragmatic and work on a case-by-case basis. The key principle is to determine in each case what is important; what is the distinction of that property. As the poet Pope said,
"Consult the genius of the place in all".
Secondly, if there is conflict between access and conservation, the latter should always prevail. That was the trust's conclusion and is effectively written into the Environment Act 1995 in relation to national parks.
Thirdly, subject to all that, one must try to accommodate as wide a range of experience as possible. Finally, although there are a variety of ways in which to manage demand, the real problem is rather different. It is relatively easy, for example, to control access to houses, gardens and parks. But open space property, and especially uplands, is a very different kettle of fish.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that the consultations did not fully cover some areas. Access was not properly covered and the role of government, both local and central, needs to be considered. The objective of sustainability needs to permeate much more thoroughly the whole planning system at all levels. At least two PPGs need to be revised in this respect—No. 17 on sport and recreation and No. 21 on tourism. Is the Minister able to tell us whether there are any plans on that front? We are soon to have regional development authorities. They will take a great interest in tourism. That is all to the good, provided their actions and policies are properly informed by the principles we are discussing this afternoon.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for initiating this debate, which draws attention to the case for a balance between heritage and tourism. Of course there must be a balance, but we need to discuss in what way that balance needs to be changed in the future. I will talk about the balance between heritage and tourism, especially with regard to the national parks.
I live within sight of the Yorkshire Moors and the Yorkshire Dales National Park. I had the honour of representing in another place for almost 33 years the southern part of the Lake District National Park. My

307
references to the Lake District are relevant to other national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty throughout the country.
There is a conflict at times between the heritage and tourists. The noble Earl, Lord Bradford, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, have already referred to one of the most notable conflicts in the Lake District where one finds an ever-widening of footpaths caused by the sheer weight of numbers of tourists, to say nothing of the litter that they leave behind. That is one of the most obvious cases of damage which is caused to the environmental heritage.
One only has to visit in the Lake District some of the honey-pot tourist centres like Windermere, Ambleside and Keswick to find that at times tourism is causing almost total traffic, pedestrian and maritime indigestion. This indigestion happens only relatively few times during a year. It is over perhaps 16 of the busy summer weekends that it becomes apparent and, at times, intolerable. The problem is far less apparent, and almost non-existent, at other times of the year. Even during the 16 busy weekends of the year, it is still easily possible, if one wishes, to escape from the crowds and to wander lonely as a cloud through the fells and valleys. It is only the main thoroughfares, population centres and some of the most popular walks and climbs which are overcome by tourists generally.
The first lesson in dealing with this balance must be to curb the instincts of some of the over-exuberant planners and to resist some of the dottier solutions which they have put forward over the years. I shall give your Lordships some examples. A few years ago in the Lake District a great scheme was proposed to charge everybody who was not a resident to enter the Lake District National Park. More recently there was a scheme produced to impose low speed limits on all the roads, however major, however wide, however well-constructed and at all times of the year. That would have only served, outside the busy periods, to infuriate the local population, particularly doctors, vets and those carrying out important local services. Further, what I regard as a dotty idea was to seek to ban sports based on power boats on Lake Windermere, particularly water skiing. With proper and vigorous controls there is room enough for everyone on that lake, which is the only lake left where those sports are permitted. All these schemes have been rightly thrown out. I hope that the Government will not seek to revive them in the future. The problems such as they are can be dealt with in a much less draconian way.
With regard to this balance, there is one aspect of the culture to which I would particularly like to refer. The culture of the Lake District in recent years has been hugely improved and strengthened by the growth of wonderful museums, which depend for their survival and prosperity on the tourists who go there. I shall give your Lordships some examples. The Wordsworth Museum at Grasmere, which has been massively expanded under Dr. Robert Woof; the Ruskin Museum at Coniston; the Beatrix Potter Museums at Hawkshead and Sawrey and the. Steam-boat Museum at Bowness. Those, together with a number of historic houses, all
308
contribute to a far greater understanding of the wonderful culture of the Lake District. All those museums have made their contribution and they could not exist without a vibrant tourist industry.
While it is always right to he prepared to create and bring in new controls to curb the excesses and the damage which follow the weight of vast numbers of tourists, one must never forget the interest of the local population when one is bringing in these controls and changes. We must remember that our national parks are not wilderness areas as are the national parks in the United States. There is a major difference in the nature of our national parks. People who live outside these areas must remember that, to the farmers, to the massive numbers of people employed in the tourist industry—it is the biggest industry in the Lake District—and to the thousands of people employed outside farming and tourism, the national parks are their workplaces and the sites of their livelihood.
We must strive to arrive at this difficult balance. There are two principles. First, you cannot seek to reinstate, for instance, the Lake District as William Wordsworth left it, although there are people who try to do so. Secondly, as the noble Viscount said when opening the debate, you cannot allow those who come to admire and enjoy the area to destroy it by sheer weight of numbers. The balance is a very delicate one. I fear that over-aggressive, blanket controls could be introduced which are neither necessary nor fair on the local working population. In achieving this balance, I plead with the Government, and all those who have responsibility for maintaining that balance, to show the greatest delicacy in making any changes.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, with all due deference to my noble friend Lord Falkland, I do not believe that there is any commercial imperative in tourism. In my book, an imperative is something which you are bound to follow: we are not bound to follow the way of tourism. However, my noble friend has done us all a great service by drawing attention to the threat to our heritage—a threat which we must take very seriously. But the way of caring for our heritage in a sustainable world is by decreasing tourism. From time to time, I attend, as do other noble Lords no doubt, conferences on green or, as my noble friend said, eco-tourism. Like my noble friend, I note that they are usually sponsored by some body such as British Airways whose object is clearly to maximise the number of travellers while not incurring too much opprobrium from the growing green public opinion.
Sustainable tourism is an oxymoron—a contradiction in terms. Air travel, which is the main way in which people now proceed around the globe, is one of the great polluters and one which is virtually untaxed. The untaxed gas increasingly guzzled by larger and larger aircraft decreases our non-renewable resources while destroying the ozone layer. When we/they arrive at the destinations, there are all the problems which will be deployed by other speakers in their speeches today. Am I being hypocritical when I say these things? Yes, I am. I travel abroad. What is my defence? I have no defence;

309
only the usual excuses, most of them straight from Oscar Wilde. First, I can resist anything except temptation; secondly, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue; and, thirdly, unlike most of your Lordships, I am a socialist and am proud of it. A libertarian socialist, but a socialist nonetheless. I know that the evil of sustainability-wrecking tourism can only be combatted by society as a whole. That society is not ready to do this yet, I can see. That society will come round to it I have no doubt, because, for various reasons to do with my understanding of the meaning of life, I do not think that this planet will commit suicide, which is what unsustainability will mean.
My message is not one of total gloom. The fact is that tourism is increasing at the same time as we are being treated to increasing virtual reality. There is no need for tourists to go and see the great places of the world—and, incidentally, destroy them—when they can see them virtually every night on their television screens. That answers the argument about education and broadening the mind. It is true that you lose something on the way. I myself get a great authentic frisson from regarding in actuality the ruins of once great empires, but I can gratify that lust by staying in this Chamber and gazing on the Conservative Party.
There was a time when sustainable tourism was possible: a time when people could ship on banana boats or not very environmentally-destructive liners. It is now almost impossible to cross the Atlantic by sea, except on a special voyage at special times in a luxury cruise liner. I know that because I tried at a time when I thought that it was more than usually nauseating to be travelling by air to a conference on saving the planet.
Today's debate is an interesting one on an interesting subject. But basically what your Lordships are discussing is how most aesthetically to site a brothel on the "Titanic". And there are probably no Oscars being awarded for that.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, the case for a balance between conservation and tourism is surely overwhelming. I am sure that we all agree with that view. Happily, there is a great awareness of this which has developed in recent years. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned the Government's initiative in that respect with the consultative document, Tourism—Towards Sustainability. However, what the noble Lord did not mention is the fact that we all have one more month in which to make representations to the Government about what is in the document.
One of the predecessors of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as chairman of the National Trust in the 1920s said that preservation enables you to permit access but,
"without preservation: access becomes forever impossible".
That has really been a guiding maxim for the National Trust ever since. It is interesting to note that, although it was said so long ago, it is even more relevant today when visitors to National Trust properties number 10 million.
310
I think the most difficult aspect of the preservation versus tourism problem is quite an intangible one; namely, how to preserve what is often referred to as,
"the genius of the place".
It is that elusive quality which is the essence and spirit of a garden or building or indeed a combination of both. It is that intangible spirit that can easily be lost under the weight of commercial pressures and the resulting number of tourists.
Having touched on things of the spirit, I should like to raise two mundane but important points. First, there is the old chestnut of VAT on listed buildings. All of us involved in the heritage never lose an opportunity to raise the matter. Therefore, noble Lords will all know to what I am referring. It is really the fact that if you restore and conserve a listed building you pay 17.5 per cent. VAT, whereas if you alter a listed building you pay no VAT. That does not encourage conservation; indeed, I have known of cases where an individual has walked a VAT man through a listed building agreeing how much he has had to alter to save the entire VAT bill.
I should declare an interest at this point as chairman of the Georgian group and of the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies. Some noble Lords may have seen an article in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph referring to the lobbying of the Treasury by the Amenity Societies as regards these VAT anomalies. The joint committee hopes to see Dawn Primarolo, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in July to discuss this matter. However, she has made rather ominous noises about the problems of the European Community and VAT regulations. When the Secretary of State at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport came to see the joint committee he was most sympathetic to our cause as regards VAT, as other Secretaries of State have been in the past. But it is very difficult to get anything moving on what clearly is a serious anomaly.
One type of building which is particularly hit by the VAT situation is the wonderful cathedrals and churches which abound in this country. They are tremendously expensive to maintain but they are all unable to register for VAT. Of course, they are some of the most visited of all the tourist attractions here. It is quite frustrating, too, when one thinks of the money that English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund give in repair grants each year—which must be, I suppose, about £100 million—to know that £17.5 million of that goes straight back to the taxman.
My second point relates to the listing of buildings. There is some way to go with the resurveying of the lists. For example, some tourist towns such as Ely and Exeter, which is the home city of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, have to make do with lists which are 25 years old. The problem here is that, since that time, it has become clear that quite a number of other buildings should be included in those lists. Indeed, in any resurvey they would be. However, they are not protected at present by listed building legislation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether he thinks it will be possible slightly to speed up the resurveying of such buildings. Today's debate is both a timely and an

311
interesting one. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as regards all the points that are raised this afternoon.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in speaking in yet another debate in this House on tourism and as one who has been involved in the business for over 50 years, I must declare an interest, first, in developing and managing one of Britain's most popular privately owned tourist attractions and as president of the Southern Tourist Board and the Tourism Society. On a personal note, it is a great pleasure for me to note that this is the first time in history that two Lord Montagus have spoken in the same debate. As is to be expected from a former chairman of the English Tourist Board the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, made an erudite contribution to the debate. I have warned him that in future he may receive all my bills and I shall receive all his invitations which I shall sort out, and shall keep the best ones.
I confess that I was somewhat puzzled to discover what lay behind the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Was it, or was it not, a suggestion that commercial interests were in danger of degrading and affecting the conservation of our cultural and environmental heritage? Having been involved in building up a major tourism attraction over the past 40 years in an area of outstanding natural beauty, I certainly have no need to be persuaded to accept, indeed always to pursue and to ensure, the necessity of a balance between the future interests of our heritage and the need for a sensible commercial approach to sustain it.
Although the immediate post-war era saw a somewhat amateur approach and some mistakes were made, we—I speak for almost all historic house owners—believe that conservation has always taken a priority. We have every right to be proud of what has been achieved. The way that we present our heritage sites in this country is admired the world over. For owners to have redeveloped their properties too much and introduced incompatible activities would have been self-defeating, as it was recognised that in the future the value of these properties as they stand, representing various eras of history, was that they should not be affected too much by anachronistic influences or cheap commercialisation. Indeed nothing should be done to spoil the site for those who visit it. Therefore unsympathetic and inappropriate developments were rarely considered and were usually rejected, as were irrelevant distractions. Instead owners have concentrated on means of attracting visitors, welcoming them and ensuring that they are well looked after. As regards facilities, I have always said that the most important things are a good car park, good toilets, a cup of tea and something to interest the children.
This philosophy of high standards in everything from presentation to ensuring that the public enjoy themselves and are well informed about the property has been followed not only by private owners but also at sites owned by the National Trust and English Heritage. Our historic sites are rightly the envy of the world.
312
Relatively few properties have suffered from excessive visitor pressure and related developments. Fortunately successive governments have supported the role of the private owner as being the best unpaid curator that could possibly be imagined. Without that partnership and the efforts of the owners, the houses today would be in a sorry state.
Such facilities as shops, restaurants and well designed extras are all part of a day out for the whole family and will enhance the visit but need never conflict either with the local environment or local people. Of course commercial developments need to be properly planned, not imposed piecemeal or casually. This has been well illustrated by some large firms such as Madame Tussauds which took over Warwick Castle some years ago and has not only made alterations in good taste but at the same time has increased attendance. Sites such as Warwick and Beaulieu employ many people—400 at Beaulieu and about the same number in some other large houses.
The fact is that any person or company considering development of an historic site today is up against all kinds of hurdles from local authorities and their planning policies to amenity societies and local people. By the time these hurdles are cleared, one can be sure that the development will have the least impact on its surroundings. I noted with interest the new consultation exercise, Tourism towards Sustainability, recently announced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which claims to show a different and radical approach in the desire to consult people as to how they wish the Government to support tourism growth which is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. I suspect, without being facetious, that almost everyone who is consulted will think that tourism is a good thing for the country but all of them will not wish it to be in their backyard. Democratically desirable as it may well be, I cannot think of a greater disaster than to suggest that local people should decide such issues. By the time anything had gone through the planning stage, I suggest that little might happen.
"Sustainability" is the new buzz word. But today the issues that really affect tourism include, for instance, the strong pound. It will take millions of Britons out of the country this year to benefit from the exchange rate and will decrease and deter many visitors from coming to Britain. The price of petrol here and the Government's policy of deterring motoring will mean that many remote sites will suffer. It is no good thinking that new railway stations, railway lines or bus routes will be viable unless they are highly subsidised. The uncomfortable fact is that there are probably too many tourist attractions in Britain now, the large majority of which have been created in the past 20 years, many through the lottery. The tourism cake is no bigger but more attractions are taking slices out of it. All the questions asked in the consultation paper—which I warmly welcome—will cost money in one way or another, as will the need for some government legislation, for example in rearranging school term dates. Of course it would be good to spread the tourist season in order to limit visitor impact at peak times. However, we do not have a climate like Florida. It

313
would take a great deal of persuasion to expect people to take family holidays in November or February, quite apart from the fact that staffing depends heavily on the use of young people in school holidays—a fact much welcomed by those studying A-levels.
I end by saying that there is, and indeed always has been, a case for a balance between conservation and commercial interests. I believe that it has always been well practised in this country. If we accept the Government's policy that they are committed to supporting tourism, regardless of the consultation which will take place, the ball has been, is, and always will be firmly in their court.
4.16 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Falkland for giving me the opportunity to speak in this interesting debate.
I shall say something about sustainable tourism in Scotland but, first, I wish to establish what a tourist is. Surely most of us have our own idea of a tourist. It is a person, family, or group travelling around the country, stopping off at pubs, hotels or hostels, spending money as they travel. Traditionally, of course, a tourist should be a foreigner. In Scotland that means predominantly the English!However, the Scottish Tourist Board defines a tourist as anyone who stays one night away from home. That distinguishes him from a day tripper. Thus, if a Londoner goes to Windsor for the day with his children, he is a day tripper. However, if his car breaks down and he decides to stay the night in the Old House Hotel, he becomes a tourist. If you live in England and travel to Perth to visit your old mother, you are a tourist. If you take her to a wildlife park for the day, you are still a tourist but she is a day tripper.
My next point is perhaps more controversial in its definition. If you go to a business conference in Edinburgh—whether you are English or Scottish—and you stay the night, you are counted as a tourist. If I go to the Edinburgh Festival for a few days and stay with friends for the night, I become a tourist. Noble Lords may feel that all this classification does not count for much, but as regards official statistics it can be misleading. This year, for instance, the Scottish Tourist Board claims that tourist numbers in Scotland are 2 per cent. up on last year. Yet those of us who work in the tourist industry—here I declare an interest as I manage and own a country park in the Firth of Clyde—know that the number of tourists (real tourists) was considerably down. There were many fewer of them around last year. That view was confirmed by nearly all the other visitor attractions.
In September of last year, the Scottish Tourist Board admitted that there had been a fall in the number of tourists, and blamed it on the effect of the strong pound. So how does the board now claim that the numbers are 2 per cent. up? Apparently, at the end of the year visitor numbers picked up considerably, but that affected only the large towns—Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The conference business was very good and many people took up offers of short winter break bargains. So perhaps we should make yet another distinction—between urban and rural tourists.
314
Big cities, I feel, should be able to look after themselves. It is the Scottish countryside, the country hotels and the country visitor attractions that need the tourists. The rural areas need the jobs that come from tourism, and some of the remote parts of the Highlands depend on tourism for their survival. So it is misleading of the Scottish Tourist Board to boast that tourism was up last year. In the places that really matter, it was down. That is particularly worrying, because tourism is on the increase in almost every other European country, as the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, said. That is not so in Scotland, and probably not so in Britain. I wonder whether it is all down to the disincentive of the strong pound. Or is Scotland simply failing to keep up with competition?
So far as concerns sustainable tourism, Scotland seems to be doing considerably better. Our greatest tourist assets are our history and our spectacular scenery. But those assets are also important to conservationists and environmentalists. As we all know, if they are not carefully managed, tourists can erode or destroy the very things they come to enjoy. The Scottish Office has long been aware of that dilemma. In 1992, a task force was set up called the Tourism and Environment Task Force, specifically to consider,
"how the development of tourism in Scotland can be reconciled with the need to conserve and protect the environment".
It consisted of representatives of practically every government agency, local authority and interested pressure group that one can think of—the Scottish Tourist Board; Scottish Natural Heritage; Scottish Enterprise; Highlands and Islands Enterprise; Historic Scotland; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the Forestry Authority; the Scottish Sports Council; the Scottish Office Industry Department; the National Trust for Scotland; the Scottish Landowners' Federation; Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link; and a representative from the area tourist board.
Fortunately, Scotland has so much wild and beautiful country and a relatively small population; so in most places there is no reason for conflict between the needs of tourists and the concerns of environmentalists. In the remoter areas, conflicts seem to be confined to battles between ramblers and landowners—but that is another story.
However, there are several famous "honeypots"— beautiful and popular parts of Scotland, easily accessible and always in danger of being overrun. I refer to places like Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis and the Cairngorms. In such places there tend to be three, potentially conflicting, interest groups: the people who live and work there; the tourists and day trippers who want to visit, together with the hotel and leisure operators who want to exploit the area for those tourists; and the conservationists and environmentalists—hill walkers, bird watchers, natural historians and people who like studying lichen and inspecting peat bogs. This last group tend to want to restrict tourism because they fear the damage that it can do, although, ironically, they themselves are mostly classed as tourists by the Scottish Tourist Board.

315
One of the roles of the Tourism and Environment Task Force is to try to reconcile the different interest groups. Visitor management schemes have been set up to control and monitor the more sensitive sites. In most cases they seem to be working very successfully. Loch Lomond is a particularly sensitive area. It is both ecologically important and the most popular tourist and day-tripper destination. It has been estimated that 5 million people pass through Loch Lomond each year; and at Duck Bay, a well-known beauty spot, 500,000 a year stop for picnics or to admire the view. At the height of the season great pressure is put on the facilities, such as car parking and toilets. I am told that there have been serious problems this year in relation to toilet facilities. However, that matter is easily resolvable.
In the Cairngorms, however, there is a more serious conflict of interests. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the tourist related bodies want to see a funicular built to allow visitors spectacular views in summer and to provide a new starting-point for skiers in winter. The scheme is opposed by most of the environmental bodies which fear that damage could be done by too many feet trampling the unique and sensitive eco-structure of the Cairngorms plateau. Scottish Natural Heritage, which is concerned with both tourists and environmental matters, has the power to stop the scheme but has decided to support it subject to certain conditions which have now been met. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wildlife Fund are taking SNH to the European Court in an attempt to have the project stopped.
However, such head-on conflicts are rare. The Tourism and Environment Task Force has been able in most cases to reconcile the different interests in ways that bring benefit to both the tourism industry and conservationists. Soon, under the new Scottish parliament, I hope that both Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms will become designated national parks and that a new national park authority will be in power to manage those complex and sensitive areas in the best interests of all parties.
Fortunately, in Scotland we are taking the problems of tourism and the environment seriously. So that is not the main problem that arises in relation to tourism. The main problem, so far as the rural areas are concerned is the short season—large numbers of visitors in the summer months and not enough for the rest of the year. But even more worrying is the fear that Scotland is beginning to lose its share of the world tourist market. Let us hope that last year was only a temporary blip and that the pound weakens against other currencies.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take you south for a few moments, from Scotland and the Cairngorms to the other end of the kingdom, to the South Downs and the Seven Sisters. I declare an interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board—a post that I willingly took on from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, a few months ago. From our point of view, this debate
316
introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, comes at a singularly opportune moment. Only last week, as some noble Lords will have read in the newspapers, the Countryside Commission announced that it was reporting to Ministers about the future conservation needs of the South Downs. That is to be the subject of my remarks. The noble Viscount's Motion refers to,
"the case for a balance between the conservation of our cultural…heritage and the commercial imperative of tourism".
That is the crux of the matter, as my noble friend Lord Jopling stated in his speech, particularly in relation to the Lake District.
We in Sussex, and on the Sussex Downs Board, were delighted with the Countryside Commission's recommendations to Ministers. We have not yet seen them in full, but we are very pleased with those that we have seen, and with the press release, and that the Countryside Commission took the view that we expressed in the paper that we submitted to the commission at the end of January—first, that the South Downs needed the highest possible degree of protection; and, secondly, that it should be, unlike at present, managed through an independent statutory body, and thus its long-term future would be assured, together with long-term funding, a considerable part of which should come from central government. Like every conservation body, we should like the percentage from central government to be as high as possible, but at least 50 per cent.
The Countryside Commission stated that the independent statutory body should be,
"aimed at conserving the natural beauty of the area, managing recreational demands and ensuring proper planning protection".
Having lived under the Downs for 30 years, I wholeheartedly agree with that brief description of what we need in the Downs. It is very much in line with what we proposed in January at a meeting after which we produced our response to the Countryside Commission. I am glad to say that with just two abstentions our response was unanimous, representing the view of a board which consists of 24 councillors (county, district and some from Brighton and Hove authority) and 12 nominees of the Countryside Commission.
The details are still to come and I shall be interested to know the precise shape of the legislation that the Countryside Commission proposes or will suggest to Ministers to deal with the solution for us and other areas of outstanding natural beauty that they are putting forward.
The point I wish to stress to your Lordships this afternoon is that the conservation board has been a great success. I can say that because I only became chairman six months ago so I do not have to take any credit for it. It has been a success essentially by working in partnership with every kind of body: farmers, landowners, the Environment Agency and the Countryside Commission. There is a list of them, for example, in the paper I have here about our Ouse Valley Project and all the people with whom we are trying to work in order to conserve and enhance the natural amenities of the Ouse Valley.

317
It is that basis of partnership that has not only made us a successful and appreciated local body, but it is also important for the future. We do not want to go against the grain of what the people in Sussex and East Hampshire want.
On the specific question of tourism, it is interesting that it was one question asked by the Countryside Commission in their paper to which we and 555 others responded. On tourism, in the responses received by the Countryside Commission, 35 per cent. favoured no encouragement of tourism whatever; 25 per cent. wanted it only under strict control. Only 3 per cent. thought that we in the South Downs should be encouraging tourism without any caveats. As a subsidiary question, there were replies stating that 34 per cent. thought that sustainable forms which do not harm the environment were acceptable; 17 per cent. thought that quiet or green tourism was acceptable. Here I rather disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, because eco-tourism is perhaps not an attractive phrase but it is one that we shall increasingly have to live with. The answer for the future in my book definitely lies in trying—certainly for us in the Downs—only to develop that kind of tourism that lies within the last two descriptions: sustainable forms that do not harm the environment or quiet or green tourism.
Of course, the devil lies in the detail. The chalk grassland of the Downs becomes worn away extremely quickly. Others such as the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, have quoted the phrase "loved to death". That easily applies to the South Downs.
In contrast, I was in north Norfolk last weekend and was fortunate enough to be able to walk through the Holkham Woods where Eddie Coke and English Nature between them have created a marvellous path down to Holkham Beach. It was not busy on Sunday afternoon, there were ducks, geese and terns pretending to be gannets. Then we went over to the Pensthorpe Water Fowl Trust at Fakenham where Bill Makins has, I think with great intelligence, created out of 200 acres of gravel pits a series of well landscaped ponds where you can see anything from the smallest of waders to geese and ibis. When we were there, they were looking lovely in the spring sunshine and rain, and it was not very busy. The next day I gather that it was quite a different scene because a heron rarely seen in this country had arrived on Bill Makins's pools. There were—if I may use that friendly word—"twitchers" from all over Britain rushing to see this unusual form of heron. However, I heard that for the Pensthorpe Water Fowl Trust, the average number of visitors a year over the 200 acres was 45,000 to 50,000. Contrast that with us, with our Exceat Country Park near Seven Sisters, a few miles out of Eastbourne, where there are a few shops, a small restaurant and you can hire a mountain bike or walk down the Cuckmere to the heritage coast. It has not 45,000 visitors a year, but 450,000, with 150,000 cars. The idea of revenue from visitors is attractive, but we have not succeeded in finding any ways of achieving it.
In a sense, that expresses our dilemma. We have 80 miles of extraordinary landscape, only four miles wide on average. We have 32 million visits a year. I have just heard that Loch Lomond has 5 million.
318
Ten million people live within an hour's drive of the centre of the South Downs; 1 million could walk from their homes to the centre and back easily in the course of one day. It is a very difficult, unusual beauty spot in the south of England which must be conserved in the next century.
I very much hope that Ministers—and I say this with great respect to the noble Lord—will listen carefully to the different submissions coming to them. I hope that the Government will reach the right decision as to the South Downs conservation authority for the next century. It is a decision which should not be made in a mood of seeking great publicity. The Government should not be carried away and make a large millennium gesture. We want the best possible scenario: a statutory body for the unique South Downs which will help us conserve them throughout the next century so that we will pass on to our children and their children something as beautiful as it is today.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I must first declare an interest, having been involved in the tourism industry for upwards of a quarter of a century, in rather a different field from any previous speaker or, I think, any succeeding speaker. That is the caravan industry. It is often misunderstood, often derided, but gives an invaluable service to a great number of visitors and tourists during the year. I fear that I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who has just spoken and say that I shall gradually meander northwards from where I begin my speech.
First, I wish to remark on the most interesting and, to me, extraordinarily welcome remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, on the subject of there being too many tourists not paying enough. He indirectly suggested a tourist tax; and I hope that I am not building too much on what I thought he said. There is much to be said for a tourist tax, as long as local authorities are allowed to hypothecate it. This has always been absolute anathema to the Treasury, so it merely chops the block grant, as has happened to museums. Nevertheless, I see today, rather encouragingly, that Mr. Prescott has negotiated a deal, wearing his transport hat, for certain road schemes and facilities being allowed to hypothecate the revenue derived. That is good news.
This tax is inevitable, because of the problems which have already been spoken of with a remarkable degree of unanimity in the House. People know that there are too many tourists for the good of some places and not enough in total at a good enough price. I suppose that in England there are two major tourist attractions: London and York. I know that there are others, including Oxford, and I was at Cambridge. That is sufficient. Scotland has Edinburgh. Wales has Snowdonia.
The only thing that can be done to spread out tourism is to make it expensive to go to the overloaded attractions and possibly cross-subsidise those elsewhere. However, that involves a degree of co-operation between parties who may well find it difficult to work together.

319
I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount who introduced this debate recognise that it was necessary to have a balance between tourism and conservation, both effectively of buildings and landscape. Of course that is right. It is also a fact that tourism is commercially driven. People are not involved in the tourism industry for fun on the whole. One of the problems about tourism is that last night's empty hotel bed, unlet caravan pitch or unsold ticket is worth nothing the following day. It always used to be said that there is no commodity less valuable than yesterday's newspaper, but in fact you can either read it or light the fire with it and it can potentially be recycled. But the empty bed, the booking not taken or empty theatre seat, or whatever, is utterly valueless and that puts great pricing pressure on people to maintain their turnover by discounting.
Therefore, there is always this dilemma of downward pressure on prices in order to get volume because every extra space means money and may cost you very little. If you are in the hotel business it may cost you a breakfast, a little electricity, some hot water and the laundry; and that is about it. So that fact of life has to be recognised in considering how to strike the balance between the extent of tourist facilities and conservation. People will always tend to go for volume unless they see themselves as being in a very select niche of the market. Everybody seems to be pretty well agreed what the troubles are and are in reasonable agreement about what can be done about them.
History and scenery are our strong points. Another that is particularly important is civil peace. It is interesting to note that tourists are deterred quite deliberately by terrorists in the Arab states, Egypt and other places by well-planted bombs, shooting incidents and so on. It drives them away; people will not go. We have the incalculable advantage of having sustained civil peace in this country. That goes together with the wide availability of the English language throughout the markets from which our tourists come, as well as further afield. After all, English is now the language of the whole world's air traffic control system.
One of the points against us is the great concentration of tourists, which I touched on earlier. That has to be dealt with. Another point—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has heard me bat on this before—is the discriminatory effect of the tourist operators' margin scheme against countries which have a higher rate of VAT than is common in the rest of the European Community. If you have this huge concentration of people and you do not shift it about, as the noble Lord, Lord Montague, said very clearly, ultimately what they come to look at will have gone. That effect cannot be avoided, so you have to limit access.
This is also now a problem in the wider countryside with the invention of quad bikes, moto-cross bikes and to a lesser extent mountain bikes. Horses have four very powerful destructive feet when it is wet. Therefore it is idle to imagine that an unlimited right to roam can be regarded as a sustainable development: it cannot.
In trying to achieve the balance between conservation and tourism of course there are a number of obstacles. They may not be meant to be obstacles but they can
320
be: most particularly the planning authorities. Also, in Scotland, there is the Scottish Office, and then there are other parts of government in Scotland—"Historic Scotland" and its subsidised off-shoot, the Civic Trust. Then there are local government planning consents and refusals. All of these come into it and quite frequently the authorities do not get it right.
I have the feeling that, at the moment, if you put up a big enough scheme you will get permission. One looks across the river at Battersea power station, standing derelict. That was an enormous scheme. It is interesting to speculate whether, if one made an application in regard to a virgin site of some 600 acres in Perthshire and proposed to build a large hotel with two golf courses connected by a branch railway, you would get planning permission. In fact it happened in the 1920s and is now called Gleneagles. Has it done badly for the countryside or has it done good? My view is that it has been a worthwhile development of enormous importance. However, this balance tends to go against small-scale developments which could be useful in-fills or start-ups in rural areas, and I must impress upon your Lordships that that is clearly something that it is essential to address. We must make sure that small enterprises can get going.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, if you were to visit the small market town of Burford in the county of Oxfordshire about which the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, spoke so eloquently, you would see the church of St. John the Baptist. On the wall outside is a monument to three men, three soldiers, who in 1647 were done to death on the orders of Oliver Cromwell because they, the first Levellers, objected to the totalitarian state that Cromwell was introducing. Many people from all parts of the world go and look at that monument.
If you were to go inside the church you would see a chapel. In the chapel are buried a man, his wife, daughter and grandson. It is an enormous funereal monument which takes up the whole chapel, so there is no space in which to look around it. That monument is to the memory of a Lord Chief Justice, Sir Lawrence Tanfield. He was James I's Lord Chief Justice and was, it is reputed, a harsh and unjust man. His wife, we are told, was worse. I quote from the DOB:
"she saith that we are more worthy to be ground to powder"—
that is what her tenants said—
"than to have any favour shewed to us, and that she will play the very devil among us."
Lord Chief Justice Tanfield was the direct ancestor of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who introduced today's debate. It will not have escaped your Lordships that for the last six weeks the noble Viscount has been our acting Chief Whip. This gives me the opportunity not only to welcome back to our Benches the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, but also to welcome him back to the task, which the noble Viscount does so well, of being our cultural spokesman. We thank him for introducing the debate.
I declare the first of two interests. At the age of 18 I joined the finest travel agency in the world and stayed for 20 years. That travel agency is the British Army.

321
I went round about 67 countries. Not only is one a tourist. One is also, when leaving the shores of the United Kingdom, an ambassador for one's country. One meets many sorts of people; one sees many different museums, galleries and places of interest. Likewise, those who come here are not only tourists; they are also ambassadors. This exchange of knowledge between people of all nations is, in this rather hectic and dangerous world, even more important today than it was before. Tourism lets us get to know each other. Therefore I totally, but politely and reverently, disagree with my noble friend and kinsman, as only kinsmen are allowed to do, when he says that tourism is a bad thing.
Let me give two or three examples of how, in this great capital city, we deal with tourists. The first is this House. Every day people pour through. They do not pay; it is theirs. The people own Parliament. They can start on the line of route and see magnificent places. They flow through without disturbing the work of this place because the system is properly controlled and planned. They start at one end; they have guides, and they leave at the other end.
Another example is Westminster Abbey. On Sunday I took an Estonian member of parliament, Mr. Tōnu Tepandi, there. It was not designed for tourists but as a place of worship. We have heard how the National Trust introduced a ticketing system whereby visitors to its premises are allocated a time and place and the flow of tourists is regulated. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for reminding us of that. I suggest that at some stage Westminster Abbey should introduce that system. The Estonian member of parliament and myself had a disagreeable, although interesting, time when we visited the shrine. It was difficult to view it comfortably.
Another example is my old family favourite, the National Portrait Gallery. It hopes to see an increase in the number of visitors from 800,000 to 1.2 million a year. I thank the Minister and his fellow Ministers in another place who made it possible to visit the National Portrait Gallery free of charge. I hope that that will continue. What is the gallery going to do? It has introduced another entrance; there will be two escalators; and there will be a terrace at the top with a restaurant so that people can wait there and buy food or drink. There will be more space and more balance between the need to conserve and the need to exhibit.
Let us see beyond London. I visited the Riblat Gallery in the British Library. It is magnificent. I too have turned the pages of the Lindisfarne Gospels; the place is full of treasures. In fact, it may be overfull. The Minister may wish to tell us how he and his Government will urge the British Library and others to arrange the permanent loan of objects of art so that they can be seen in their best perspective in the regions to which they belong. People will move out of London to the regions to see them.
I turn to Stonehenge, which we discussed last year in a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who is not in his place. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will remember that certain proposals were put forward; it was said, "All will be right". Last week I visited Stonehenge in anticipation of
322
this debate. I saw no change. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us, as the millennium approaches—and Stonehenge being the greatest clock in the world—how it will be better displayed for the public. All we hear about at the moment is the Millennium Dome, which may last 25 years. Stonehenge has lasted for an infinity, although its atmosphere is in danger of being destroyed.
In 1992 I stood as parliamentary candidate for Leeds West. I decided to visit every museum in Leeds. I went to the natural history museum. I saw lions, tigers and other dangerous beasts stuffed by a taxidermist. It was a marvellous museum. When I was about to leave the building I saw a mirror and, being an extremely inquisitive person, I went up to it. To my astonishment—but not to my pleasure—I saw my own face. I looked up and above the mirror was the notice, "The most dangerous animal in the world." That may be true. We are dangerous animals at times; we destroy. Let us try to preserve and, with tourism and with access, let us create not only balance, but also space.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. Perhaps, on the whole, the balance is very much on the side of the tourist. I want to reverse that and spend more time on the environmental heritage of this country because, without an attractive heritage and environment, we would not have any tourists at all.
Are the Government doing enough to look after our landscape and the countryside? Many people would say that that is very much in doubt at the present time and the countryside march held a few weeks ago showed that many people doubted the stewardship of the Government relative to the rural economy.
Over the centuries the landowners and farmers have developed the landscape through hedges, fields, forestry and attractive farm buildings. But the rural economy is now in crisis. Farmers are going through a terrible period, made much worse by the current Government. The green pound should be adjusted forthwith. The Government have accentuated errors over BSE—effectively highlighted in debates in this House. Beef, lamb, grain and hill farms are suffering dramatically at the present time, and therefore the countryside is beginning to suffer and will rapidly become much worse. Farming must be profitable if our rural economy is to thrive and show the beauty of the countryside to tourists.
The Government act in strange ways—I shall point to a number. The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, mentioned this in relation to the Cairngorms. In Scotland we have had tremendous goodwill in areas of importance like Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms. I hope that that continues. I set up the Cairngorm Partnership when I was Minister. We developed the common ground that existed there. The noble Earl and I share the view that there are only four or five important ski areas in Scotland, the major being at Aviemore. We must allow the railway to go ahead if those areas are to survive in the future, yet the Government seem to be hostile to the

323
partnership—there have been enforced resignations, the chairman has been changed and we wonder what the Government are thinking about.
We must be careful in Scotland of going down the route of National Parks. I believe that that is what the Government have in mind. I was the Minister in England and Scotland looking after rural affairs, and national parks in England were among them. There are great advantages in staying as we are in Scotland where our planning laws are effective and local councils and enterprise companies have sufficient resources without going down the bureaucratic route that sometimes develops in a national park, about which my noble friend Lord Jopling so eloquently spoke.
In terms of tourism, we heard a savage attack from the Chancellor on motoring and road haulage. There has been a huge tax increase on petrol and diesel and that again has a severe impact on the rural economy. Nobody will believe, until we see them, that there are to be extra buses provided by the Minister for Transport. Anyhow, in rural areas a car is now essential. No amount of empty buses will help society in the countryside. People forget that the Border is 330 miles from here and Inverness 600. It costs a great deal more for a Member of the Labour Government to drive north to Scotland as a tourist than it did before Labour came to power.
I was astonished to see in the Scotsman newspaper today that the Government are getting involved in another anti-tourism scheme in relation to fishing. Hotels, shops and fishing are extremely important to the rural economy. Yet the Scottish Office Minister is scrapping the Tweed and Eye protection order. There are few enough salmon and trout in those waters now and it is heaven sent information for poachers. In no way will it help tourism. There has been no consultation with the three commissioners or with the Border Angling Association. I want to see the Government do rather more than simply put out glossy brochures about the countryside and the rural economy. Let us see some positive action which is helping various areas at this difficult time.
I want to mention also, in terms of the environment and heritage, my deep concern at the development of wind farms. I raised this matter in detail 18 months ago in a debate in the other place and not much seems to have happened since. I was given an assurance in October 1996 by the then Minister that the Government would look carefully at what I had said with regard to planning permission for wind farms and telecommunications towers. I wonder whether that has indeed happened.
At present, anyone, after consulting the planning authority—he does not have to get permission—can, under the various telecommunications Acts and government guidelines and development orders, put up a telecommunications tower of roughly 50 feet in height. Anyone who drives around the countryside—this is certainly true in Scotland—sees a proliferation of towers on top of almost every hill. We should take a much more serious line about this, particularly if it continues to develop at the present rate.
324
The same is true for wind farms. I know that we are interested in sustainable development and renewable energy, but we also know that without very substantial subsidies wind farms would not be established at all. I have looked at them all over the place, from Denmark to Wales and from England to Scotland and every time I have become more and more depressed as I have seen towers of 50 feet, 100 feet and sometimes 200 feet dotted about the countryside generating extraordinarily little electricity. On an average winter day we need 50,000 megawatts of electricity, of which wind farms develop about 64 megawatts. One can see that in relation to their desecration of the countryside the amount of power they produce is extraordinarily little.
Of course I encourage wave power and I encourage hydro-electricity, but if we are looking, as we are, at our environmental heritage, we have to be very careful about how planning authorities seem to give permission for generators and wind farms almost at the drop of a hat, without considering in detail the objections, which are many, and bearing in mind that once the pylons are in place the employment is extremely small and the electricity generated is very little. Then, of course, there are the transmission lines from the wind farms back to the point where the electricity is required.
I put in a plea to the Government to look again at the legislation on wind farms and on telecommunications towers. We have to look after our heritage because if we do not we will find that our tourism will fall away. People will not come here to look at wind farms in large numbers. One was announced in Argyle only last week—in the Mull of Kintyre—which I hope will be carefully considered by the local planning authority and by the Scottish Office, which is supposed to have an environmental assessment of any wind farm with 10 or more towers.
The debate today has been valuable in showing our concern in the House about the number of tourists coming to honey-pots such as the Lake District, to which my noble friend Lord Jopling referred, where paths are becoming wider and wider. I can almost see the path up Helvellyn from my house with a telescope. It is becoming worse and worse. We cannot sit back and do nothing. Debates like this show the concern of those in the House. I hope that the Government will bear in mind what we have said.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin my few remarks by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing the debate. I should explain to your Lordships that the basis for almost all my comments, like many of those of my noble friend Lord Jopling, will be the north of England, where I live.
There have been important developments of all kinds in the latter part of this century, but perhaps the growth of tourism and travel has been one of the most remarkable, changing the Grand Tour into the package holiday. We have seen the growth of the leisure pound and the leisure hour, which are very important economic and social phenomena.

325
Some years ago I had the privilege to represent the Euro-constituency of Cumbria and Lancashire North in the European Parliament. What was striking about that area was the way in which tourism was the most important industry in it. In particular, the basis of that tourism was the by-product of another industry, agriculture. Indeed, it was almost the case, paradoxically, that the value of the by-product was more than the value of the main agricultural product of the industry. That casts an interesting light on the whole debate about agricultural support. For example, how can the industry that was benefiting so much from this activity contribute something towards it?
Sustainability is generally recognised as one of those good things about which all men of good will can agree. From a business perspective it is important because it represents the characteristics of a business which do not destroy themselves as they proceed through time. It is a renewable source of income to the person or family deriving their livelihood from it. From an environmental point of view it is also a good thing because the very thing which attracts the visitors is not being destroyed in the generation of wealth. Rather the opposite can happen and the environment can be enhanced.
There is a general consensus right across the political divide about the desirability of sustainability. However, as is so often the case, the devil lies in the details, and in particular how those details should relate to the political and ideological priorities of the day. Elegantly phrased policies in themselves are of little help in the promotion of sustainability. The solution to these difficult problems lies through the working of the market. In contemporary Britain, economic activity is principally determined by the workings of the laws of supply and demand and how they are affected by the response of industry and those in the market place to the Government's tax-gathering and grant-giving activities. Too frequently the left hand of government does not know what the right hand is doing.
I should like to focus the rest of my remarks on the uplands, deriving my experience from upland farming in the Lake District, where I am a hill farmer. While I am affected by the policies and how they are being applied there, I hope that I can bring some experience to the subject based on a degree of first-hand knowledge. As has already been mentioned, upland farmers are, as we speak, on the economic ropes. The reason for that is simple. Prices have crashed and that is indirectly and directly the result of the strength of the pound. In the particular circumstances of agriculture, the Government, as my noble friend Lord Monro pointed out, are directly responsible for the economic plight in which the hill farming industry finds itself. As he commented, it is possible for the Government to bring about a revaluation of the green pound.
If I were in government and I were faced with the problems which a high pound is causing to this country, not only in agriculture but right across the economic spectrum, particularly in manufacturing, I would feel instinctively reluctant to make a particular move to benefit one sector—perhaps a perceived feather-bedded sector—of an industry which may not be particularly popular. But we want to be clear that in this context
326
agriculture is different from other industries because, thanks to the way in which the common agricultural policy operates, prices are not set in a conventional, open market place. There are plenty of arguments about whether that is or is not a good thing, but that does not help those who are affected by the workings of the system that is currently in place.
Prices for these agricultural products are set within a system which provides for changes in the green exchange rates as and when the kind of circumstances which we have seen in recent times occur. Against that background, the reason prices are low is that the Government have decided for their own reasons not to trigger the changes. It is not appropriate or accurate to cast the blame wider. It is not merely a short-term problem. It may well not be a short-term problem because once this kind of crisis hits an industry, even if prices may bounce back in the relatively short future—I am not sure that I see any evidence to support that likelihood—markets, once lost, can be lost for ever.
The point about an area such as the Lake District is that it is an area which is ideally suited for the development of sustainable tourism. The problem is that the diversification that that entails involves the investment of capital, and bankrupt businesses are those which are least able to invest in order to bring about this kind of evolutionary change which is almost certainly going to take place.
One has only to look just over the border from the Lake District into the Yorkshire Dales National Park where, until the welcome advent of the environmentally sensitive area there, there was a long story of derelict rural buildings and decaying dry stone walls because the small farmers there were simply unable to do anything with the assets which were tumbling down. One of the encouraging changes that we have seen over recent years is that, thanks to the redirection of policy, we have now work in hand which has meant that some of these buildings are now being repaired. The dry stone walls, which are an essential characteristic of the environment and part of the heritage of these areas, and which are much loved by those who visit the locality, are being restored.
As I mentioned, in this context the working of the common agricultural policy is of very great importance. In a world which is now being faced by a further round of talks in the World Trade Organisation and the welcome proposed enlargement of the European Community, we shall see very substantial changes to the common agricultural policy which are already being flagged up in Agenda 2000.
For this country the threat of price cutting and the modulation of support pose particular threats to many of the kinds of enterprises to which I have been alluding. I shall be extremely grateful if the Minister can spell out what part the Department of Culture, Media and Sport is playing in forming the policy which will be the basis for our response to the further development of these proposals. I believe that it is absolutely essential that, in responding to the issues thrown up by Agenda 2000, the interests of tourism and sustainable rural development are placed in the forefront.

327
As part of that process it is also very important that there is close integration between United Kingdom policy and the policy of the European Community as it may well be that, as a result of an adjustment of the common agriculture policy, it will be necessary for there to be consequential adjustments to domestic policy in order to ensure that the predicaments of the areas to which I have referred are properly looked after.
I believe very strongly that boom and bust is a real danger to sustainable tourism and to sustaining the countryside because it is only sustainable businesses which can do that. Those are the businesses which, in the long run, will provide the necessary input and provide real livelihoods for real families this year, next year and the year after that.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I could not help noticing that for a great part of our debate this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was in his place. He is, and always has been, a great contributor in your Lordships' House to the many debates on tourism that we have had. On the last occasion he said how nice it was to see so many old lags gathered together once more. Perhaps I may say on this occasion, in addition to seeing so many of my fellow old lags, how nice it is to see so many new, eminent lags speaking on tourism.
I must declare my interests. I am president or patron of a number of organisations concerned with tourism and I am commercially active in a number of tourist companies. A full list is available in the Library for your Lordships to view since I would not wish to bore noble Lords with the whole list. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Falkland for having brought forward this Motion for debate today for not only is it a most interesting and important topic, as witnessed by the number, variety and quality of the contributions from your Lordships, but also because I believe that it goes to the very heart of the most important issue facing tourism.
Indeed, put in a wider context, it is not only an issue for tourism, but one which we face throughout our economic endeavours. It is that unbridled growth with no thought to the consequences of that growth is unacceptable; and that in all our economic endeavours we need to find the right balance between economic growth and the environmental and social impact of that growth. Our growth must be sustainable, not simply in economic terms, but also in environmental and social terms.
There are many issues facing tourism at present, but of these I believe two are key. These two key issues are, first, the requirement for an overall national strategy, and, secondly, how the development of the industry is to be funded. Of these two I would regard the development of a national strategy as being by far the most important. Indeed, the wide variety of points which have been raised by so many of your Lordships make it quite clear that any strategy which is developed for the successful prosecution of tourism must also take account of the wider implications. It is as important for
328
tourism to know what is required of it and permitted and judged acceptable by the nation as it is for the Government and the nation to know what tourism wants to do. These are indeed two sides of the same coin.
It is important to understand that tourism is an economic activity. I realise that that may be a statement of the obvious, but it is a point which is sometimes overlooked in debating tourism. It is an economic activity just like any other economic activity in that it has the potential to provide many benefits, usually economic in terms of foreign exchange earnings and job creation. But in addition, like any other economic activity such as manufacturing and farming, it can produce negative consequences. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Beaumont has described, with his customary eloquence, the environmental consequences. While I have the greatest respect for what he said, and it is incumbent on us to take note of it, I do not agree with him that sustainable tourism is an oxymoron. I believe that sustainable growth in all our economic activities must be our goal.
Turning to the negative social consequences and perhaps arguing from the absurd, if a Cotswold village, say, were to experience busloads of visitors who came to that village, parked their buses, walked all over, and left without spending any money in hotels, restaurants, shops or bringing any other economic benefit, then clearly the only legacy would be traffic congestion, disruption and pollution. Therefore, it is clear that without an economic benefit, tourism is not very attractive to local inhabitants. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, made that very point in relation to Oxford.
I also believe that it is important to make the difference between tourism and the provision of leisure. I would argue that tourism relates to the provision of products and services directed at the traveller, which is primarily designed to provide the economic benefit which I have mentioned, whereas leisure is principally engaged in providing the recreational activity for the residents of communities, particularly at a local level. Clearly, there is some overlap between the two, but I believe that the drivers for these are distinctly different. I would make a difference between, say, access to the countryside, which I believe to be a question of leisure much more than tourism, and, say, attracting American visitors to this country which is clearly tourism.
There are six main reasons why it is essential that we develop a national strategy. The first I have largely outlined. It is to achieve the correct balance between the economic benefit we desire and acceptable environmental and social consequences. The second reason is to be clear as to what kind of tourism it is that we wish to encourage. It is not possible to develop a coherent marketing strategy if we have not addressed this question. If we were to say that the requirement from tourism must be to produce the maximum benefit for the minimum disruption in social and environmental terms, then one is clearly led to a conclusion that our overall tourism marketing strategy must be focused on producing high yield tourism. Again, that is a point

329
made by the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, which was that it is not about numbers, but the amount of money.
The third reason is that while there has been tremendous growth in tourism and indeed the industry has greatly matured since the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the mechanisms put in place at that time and particularly the national tourist boards, have remained unchanged. At the same time, over that period although there have been many new developments, there has also been a decline in many of our traditional tourism assets—seaside resorts, for example, come to mind—and it is clear that we have a strategic need to decide how to deal with these declining assets and whether or not to support them, and if we are to support them, how to do so.
The fourth reason is to answer the very important question which goes to the substance of our debate today, which is: how much? I recently visited Jersey to speak at a tourism conference and was most interested to learn that tourism in Jersey is in decline, having fallen from something like 25 per cent. of GDP to something just under 20 per cent., if my memory serves me correctly. Yet the government of Jersey did not view this with despair, rather they were engaged in a process of managing that decline and moving the tourism industry upmarket. The reason given for this was that tourism tends to employ those at the lower end of the wage spectrum and there were not very many of those left in Jersey. This to me demonstrates that unlimited growth is neither desirable nor likely and it is important therefore that a national strategy addresses the question of how much as well as what type and where.
The fifth reason is that tourism is a highly fragmented industry and touches on a great many other sectors and government departments, such as environment, transport, and education and employment. Nowhere was this more ably demonstrated than in the debate which we held in your Lordships' House on the Wednesday prior to the Recess on the subject of the millennium experience, where the importance of the transport links of this development were clearly underlined.
The final reason that I put forward is that tourism will be one of the matters devolved to the new national parliaments. Therefore, the current structure of the BTA (theoretically having charge of British marketing of tourism, with the various national boards having charge of domestic marketing) clearly needs to be redefined and will become unworkable.
For all the above reasons and, I am sure, for many others on which I have not touched, it is clear that we need a national strategy which not only takes into account what is acceptable to the population in environmental and social terms as a price to pay for the economic benefit, but which also outlines to the industry what it can do.
I am aware that the last government began a process of reviewing tourism strategy—the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, touched on that—and I believe that that process has been carried on by the current Government and that there are a number of committees which are due to report to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
330
and Sport sometime in the summer. However, I understand that the majority, if not all, of those taking part of this process of consultation and development come from within the industry and consequently the strategy which will be put forward will be centred on the industry's desire for development.
As I have already said, this is only one side of the equation. It was for this reason that my right honourable friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, put forward a fresh concept in a speech outlining Liberal Democrat tourism policy prior to the last election. We advocated the creation of a body which we called the "tourism commission" which would have as its specific brief to review our current structure, and to conceive, recommend and oversee the implementation of an integrated and sustainable tourism strategy. We envisage that this body would be chaired by the tourism Minister and have political representatives from the other departments of state which impact on tourism, such as transport, environment, education and employment. There would in addition be representatives from within the industry and, most importantly, from those upon whom the industry impacts. Therefore, it would not be another quango, but would be part of the political process and fully accountable to Parliament.
I had intended to speak for a moment on the issue of funding, but I do not think that I have the time to do so. Therefore, I conclude by saying that tourism has much to contribute. It is a major contributor of foreign earnings, a provider of many jobs and one of our largest and fastest-growing industries. Those of us who work in the industry must, and I believe do, accept that unrestricted and unplanned growth has too great a negative impact and that therefore the consequences of our actions in terms other than economic must be taken into full account. We understand that we must have regard to the social and environmental consequences of what we do and we know that we need a strategy that addresses all of these issues. With such a strategy, I am confident that the industry will continue to be a valid national industry and with such a strategy, I believe that we can achieve the balance to which my noble friend so eloquently called attention.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for initiating this debate. It has been most interesting to listen to such a rich variety of speeches by noble Lords and not least to hear such a great number of tourist attractions mentioned, ranging from Venice to the beaches of Mombasa.
Tourists, whether in the Lake District or going round Windsor Castle, can damage what they have come to see. But do they? To read some of the voluminous articles, learned treatises and so on, one would expect to find ruin and destruction on all sides. Some 27 million tourists come to this country every year. The vast majority pass through without destroying or, indeed, damaging anything. They also spend some £36 billion or so. My noble friend Lord Bradford said that the amount was £26 billion, but I say that it is £36 billion. It is quite certain that a large number of

331
the attractions they visit would not survive without the lifeblood of tourist money paying for upkeep, conservation and preservation.
Tourism and conservation are, in fact, complementary. Where they are not, a strong dose of plain and simple common sense should bring them fruitfully together. The phrase I encountered most often in my researches for today's debate was "sustainable tourism". We have heard it a lot this afternoon. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I am afraid that I do not believe that it is a contradiction in terms. Indeed, unlike much modern jargon, to my mind the phrase is right on the button in describing the object of most noble Lords who have spoken. Tourism has to be sustainable or, in the end, it is counter-productive to the place concerned.
Tourism is already the biggest industry in the world, and it is still growing fast. It has many different facets and many different implications. Its impact on the third world is probably where it is most difficult to strike a balance between preservation and eager explorers. The delights of Bali, the Maya temples in Mexico and the indigenous tribes in the Brazilian rainforest are examples of "tourist attractions" in the broadest sense which can be severely affected by uncontrolled visiting.
It is interesting to see what the Disney Corporation has done at one of the greatest, in terms of numbers, tourist attractions in the world. I refer to Disneyland in Florida. Disney has taken enormous trouble to protect and enhance the ecology of Florida. It has also given great prominence to conservation and allied subjects over the whole site of its activities. That is an example of the right way of constructing large tourist attractions.
The Green Paper on the right to roam was recently published. I very much welcome the Government's belief that the subject can be dealt with by voluntary agreement. I confess to having grave doubts about that. A comprehensive right to roam, without control, will not protect the environment—rather the reverse. I am thinking particularly of ground-nesting birds and rare and delicate wild plants. There are many other examples of where grave damage can be done, inadvertently of course. Private landowners preserve and conserve the heritage better than any other organisation has done or could do. We had an excellent example of the necessary balance between heritage and commerce in the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
It is frequently said—it has been said today—that London traffic is a nightmare. However, in the real world, away from those who write endless, extensive analyses of what needs to be done, we who work in London have learned to live with the traffic and to accommodate our movements and timings accordingly. However, there are measures which could influence the effects of tourist traffic on congestion; namely, to persuade many more tourists to travel on the River Thames. For example, I have been very frustrated by the lack of enthusiasm and drive of the Millennium Experience Company in pressing ahead with its excellent park and sail scheme whereby shuttle waterbuses take people to the Greenwich Dome from purpose-built car parks beside the river in Barking and Thamesmead. That would considerably ease the traffic
332
congestion at Greenwich at the millennium. The Minister has been waiting for me to raise this subject again. However, it is extraordinary that it appears that the scheme is, for whatever reason, to be dropped.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the dangers posed to our national treasures by the so-called tourist menace. I have spoken to the representatives of three such. The administration manager of St. Paul's Cathedral could not think of any damage caused by tourists worth talking about, except possibly that the stairs leading up to the Whispering Gallery were becoming a bit worn and some might need to be replaced in a few years' time. He also believed that sometimes graffiti was a problem. Of course, visitors to St. Paul's are much fewer than those visiting Westminster Abbey. At the abbey I spoke to a most helpful canon. The abbey receives between 2.5 million and 3 million visitors a year. The doors are shut when it is judged that enough people are inside. Some visitors get rather wet waiting to go in. There is a good deal of wear on the pavement, mostly uneven because of the use of different stone in the construction. Because it is a working church it is difficult to rope off areas of vulnerability.
I was told that possibly sweat was the greatest long-term threat. The toxin-rich sweat given off by 17,000 people a day pollutes the atmosphere slowly but surely and damages stonework, woodwork, leadwork and the organ. Much renovation is required—hence the need to charge an entrance fee as a means of paying for it. The abbey is also troubled by noise. The problem has been much reduced recently by the simple expedient of asking visitors to remember others and to try to keep quiet.
I come last but not least to the Palace of Westminster. I spoke to Sir Edward Jones, who was kind enough to say that I could quote him, and the deputy curator. One thousand people a day follow the line of route. Damage to the fabric and contents is minimal and inadvertent. I understand that some tiles in the Royal Gallery are being worn down. The rise and fall in humidity as doors to the outside are opened and shut is a problem. It causes movement between the oil and canvas of paintings. Carpets wear. If, as has been mooted, the palace is open to the general public it will become necessary to find funds for extra security, for an awning for people waiting to come in, for extra guides and attendants, for the marketing of the operation, and for ticketing arrangements and so on. It is possible that a small entrance charge would have to be made or that money would have to be found from elsewhere.
This has been a very interesting debate. Several noble Lords have wondered why such a large proportion of visitors from abroad stay in London. There is one very good answer: London provides the best shopping in the world. We need the tourists and also need to preserve our heritage. Let us be sure that we satisfy both aspirations.
5.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all noble Lords have rightly expressed gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject. His Motion is very widely drawn and is not restricted to the United Kingdom. But the noble Viscount will observe that having himself gone as far as Mombasa he was not followed abroad by any other noble Lord except the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, who visited 67 countries during his military career, will remember the recruiting poster which described the advantages and pleasures of Army service as being the ability to travel to fascinating countries and meet interesting people. I do not know whether he remembers the graffito which was regularly placed upon that poster which read "Meet interesting people and kill them". I remind the noble Earl of his military duties.
However, the remainder of the debate has been about this country. I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me if I restrict my remarks to this country. After all, that is primarily the responsibility of this Government. We are also concerned with the world environment, to which I shall refer, but the bulk of the responses will be related to tourism in the United Kingdom.
There cannot be any doubt that tourism is an integral part of modern life. It touches most people's lives either as travellers themselves for business or leisure or as hosts at tourism destinations. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that that is a neutral observation and is not intended to judge whether it is a good or a bad thing at this stage. But clearly it directly influences the purchasing and travel behaviour of many thousands of consumers and indirectly influences a wide range of other industries such as construction, retailing, agriculture and manufacturing. Those noble Lords who have referred to the importance of tourism to our economy are quite right. I do not need to repeat the figures. Tourism has a huge impact on the national and local economy and on lifestyle, culture and the use of resources.
Tourism is set to grow even more rapidly than in the past. It is estimated that there will be in excess of a 40 per cent. growth in travel and tourism across the globe in the next decade. In parenthesis, I should remark upon the observations of my noble friend Lord Montague of Oxford, the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, and the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, about the importance of money rather than the number of tourists. The implication of what they said was that we should be after money rather than numbers because there was not much to be gained from back-packers and students. There is a certain logic in that, but I remind noble Lords that today's schoolchild and back-packer is tomorrow's family or business visitor. If they come here and gain a good impression of this country, even if they do not spend a good deal of money, the likelihood is that they will spend more at a later time. Therefore, we must look at all aspects of tourism, not simply the commercial aspect that we are invited to consider in the wording of the Motion before the House today.
334
I return to the question of the benefit of tourism. Clearly, it is one of the most successful sectors of the economy. Some parts of the country are heavily dependent both directly and indirectly on tourism. The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, and other noble Lords referred to the importance of tourism in the countryside. Tourism is one of the few industries outside the traditional rural ones that is viable in the countryside. The importance of its role has increased with the fall in employment in the more traditional industries such as agriculture and mineral extraction. The noble Lords, Lord Monro and Lord Inglewood, commented on this point. I acknowledge that there is a symbiotic relationship between the rural economy and tourism. We must be extraordinarily careful not to disturb that by allowing tourism to damage agriculture and other rural activities, or vice versa.
The Countryside Commission has estimated that 35 per cent. of tourism in this country is in the countryside, but one must look at it from the point of view of the countryside as well. Tourism is helping to reverse economic decline, provide job opportunities, as well as bringing about environmental improvements, such as the new use of derelict land, the restoration of redundant buildings and conservation and repair of the countryside. Of course it stimulates public awareness of the importance of protecting the environment, and does much to maintain and improve local services, such as public transport, shops, and leisure and cultural activities.
We must of course turn to the downside of tourism. I pay tribute to the fundamentalist view of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—the self-described libertarian socialist. I like, respect and hope to share that description, but he is against the whole thing, and I am afraid that I am not. I rather suspect that he is against it in principle rather than in practice, as his quotations from Oscar Wilde acknowledge.
The real danger is not that the concept of tourism is itself fundamentally bad; the real danger is the effect tourism may have. Many noble Lords used the phrase, "love to death". It was used first by the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, and then by many others. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, mentioned the way in which we are all of course keen on tourism in theory but not in our backyard. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, that you can reach a critical load. If you have too many visitors in the same place at the same time, you have congestion, inconvenience to local people and environmental damage.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, seemed to think that it was not a good thing that there should be more tourist attractions in England, but we should attract roughly the same number of visitors. First, there is not the same number of visitors. The numbers continue to increase. Secondly, even if that were the case, I suggest that it would be a good thing; that it would increase—to use the term which is used in industry—system diversity of the tourism industry. Even with the same number of tourists visiting the same places, the less likely you are to have the critical overload to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred.

335
A number of noble Lords then took the opportunity to express reservations about the right to roam. That was true of the noble Lords, Lord Cochrane of Cults and Lord Luke. With due respect of course for rare birds and plants, I suggest that the right to roam increases the system diversity of our countryside, and is a good rather than a bad thing. Let us take, for example, Sweden where there is a complete right to roam, except near houses and in limited circumstances. In Sweden one is free to swim from any lake except from a private jetty. I think they have the better of it.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was saying that the right to roam must not be overdone, particularly by large animals such as horses, or mechanical contrivances. On the whole, except with large numbers in wet country, footpaths do not suffer a great deal of damage, but there are vulnerable places. I had no intention of saying that the right to roam was automatically wrong; I was trying to explain that the Government and others need to be aware that it can go wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that, and I acknowledge the force of the noble Lord's reservations. I reaffirm that if we cannot reach agreement on the right-to-roam provisions—I hope that we can—we shall have to go further.
A number of noble Lords referred to particular areas of difficulty. The noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Inglewood, talked about the Lake District; and the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, about the South Downs. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, will know that the Government have no power to give directions to the Countryside Commission, and so I cannot in any way comment upon the report that it has prepared for the Government until we have had a chance to consider it fully.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was not suggesting that he should. I understand that Ministers will now be considering the Countryside Commission's proposal, and, I hope, those by the Sussex Downs Conservation Board very carefully. The point I wanted to make was that there is a close similarity between the two, and I hope that that will be recognised by Ministers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a fair point. A number of noble Lords referred to London as the gateway to Britain, and, perhaps, too often the only place to which overseas visitors come. BTA research shows that 53 per cent. of all overseas visitors spend some time in London. The noble Earl, Lord Bradford, and others were right to say that we have reached a critical overload in many parts of London, notably on our public transport system.
So let us turn to what brings the two parts of the Motion together; that is, the phrase "sustainable tourism". What does that mean? In a nutshell it means developing tourism so that the economic and social
336
opportunities that it offers are realised in a way that does not damage the resource upon which it depends for its success. It does not mean keeping everything just as it is. It is about acknowledging the needs of today and meeting them, but doing so in a way which enhances as well as conserves. It is not, as a number of noble Lords have said, a question of either economic development or environmental protection, but a proper integration of the two.
The key is to balance the demand of today's tourists with the need to conserve the industry's vital fabric for residents and visitors, today and tomorrow. The choice suggested here is not as stark as some people may think. My noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane, who was unfortunately unable to take part in the debate, reminded me, from his Scottish tourist experience, that a number of visitors, particularly German and Scandinavian, demand sustainable tourism and would not come here unless they thought that our tourist facilities were being undertaken on a sustainable basis.
I turn to what the Government are doing and plan to do about it. Noble Lords have recognised, first, that we produced Opportunities for Change in February of this year. It was launched by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is the wider consultation on updating the UK's sustainable development strategy. Within that there is of course the consultation document which has been referred to and welcomed, entitled Tourism—Towards Sustainability, which was published by Tom Clarke the Minister responsible for tourism on 14th April. It represents a radically different approach. It is the first time that the Government have consulted so widely about the role that tourism can play, because the Government are committed to enabling tourism growth that is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable.
What does the paper do? It has a number of different questions which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, kindly described as searching. Before I say more about the questions, I should say that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, seemed to think that the drafting of the paper and of our strategies was being done largely by people within the tourism industry. That is not the case. The sustainability sub-group members under the chairmanship of Geoffrey Lipman, the president of the World Travel and Tourism Council, includes representatives of the Countryside Commission, the National Trust, the Rural Development Commission, Jonathan Porritt from his own organisation, Forum for the Future, the Oxford Brooks University and, of course, the DCMS itself. It is very widely based. The 57 members of the Tourism Forum and its working parties come from a wide variety of backgrounds.
The paper seeks views on seven interrelated issues concerning sustainable tourism in the UK. First, how to integrate sustainable tourism into strategies at local, regional and national level and how to measure progress towards sustainability. Secondly, how tourism can best be used as an instrument for change. Thirdly, the best tools and techniques for managing visitor flows, thereby returning to the issue of critical load. Fourthly, how to encourage people to use more environmentally friendly transport. Fifthly, how to ensure that new tourism development contributes to the goal of sustainability.

337
Sixthly, how sustainable tourism can help increase access. Seventhly, how best to achieve the partnership between the public and private sectors that is required to bring about change.
We have distributed 10,000 copies of that document and more copies are available to anyone who wants them. It is also available on the Internet. As the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, reminded us, responses are due by 29th May to the DCMS and they may be sent by e-mail. The aim of the consultation is to ensure that the policies which we and others put in place are the right ones and that those who have to put them in place have been involved in policy making.
I will not deal with the detailed questions which were asked, but I will try rapidly to deal with some of the additional questions. As regards planning guidance No. 17 on sport and recreation and No. 21 on tourism, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is carrying out fresh research and will be reporting soon. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, asked about VAT on listed buildings. I am afraid that I can give him no more favourable an answer than I gave him on the previous occasion. As regards up-dating the listing, he named a couple of cities where we might be behind. The approach we are taking is thematic. I hope he will agree that that is right, rather than blitzing particular cities. In that way, we can more effectively address the priorities for listing.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Monro, as regards wind farms. It is a difficult issue and if there is anything in addition that I ought to tell him I shall write to him. I share the sadness of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, that we were unable via a commercial deal to set up park-and-sail to the Millennium Dome at Greenwich. However, he will recall that we are spending £21 million as part of the Thames 2000 initiative to boost new passenger transport services on the Thames. We expect 1 million people to travel by boat from central London to the Millennium Dome during the year 2000.
What will happen as a result of the consultation? First, the results will be used to update the tourism section of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. That will be published by the DETR later this year. The results will also feed into the development of the new strategy for tourism which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will launch later this year. We are working on a comprehensive strategy for tourism, for which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked, which will spell out how the Government intend to create and sustain an improved policy framework within which tourism, hospitality and leisure can flourish. It will identify the underlying trends in tourism and use that information to build on the industry's success.
Today's debate has been a most valuable addition to that consultation process. I assure your Lordships that the speeches will be included formally—there is no reason why they should not be—in the consultation process and will therefore be reflected in our conclusions.
Growth in tourism offers the industry immense opportunities, but places great responsibilities on it. Tourism in Britain flourishes because of the
338
attractiveness and quality of the natural environment. Therefore, as at least one noble Lord said, we must not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Some people believe that it is an either/or situation; either you allow tourism numbers to grow or you start to reduce visitor numbers in order to protect the environment. But it is not as simple as that. There is no reason why the development of tourism needs to be in opposition to the protection of the environment. It is a question of balancing the needs of the visitors and the needs of the environment. The two are not mutually incompatible, particularly as today's tourists are becoming more selective and discerning. With proper planning, care and attention, even the most popular and vulnerable of visitor destinations can become examples of sustainable tourism in action.
5.55 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a most interesting and productive debate. I was interested to hear the Minister pick up on a point that I have scrawled on my papers. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, and was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, and my noble friend Lord Thurso. They asked whether we were talking about people or money. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, not to be talking about a tourist tax but about "spend per head", if I may use the ineloquent jargon of the trade.
I am not sure whether I agree with his comments about young people coming here in large numbers and that we should not discourage them because they may be the tourists of the future. The paper published 10 years ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, which inspired me to table the Motion, dealt with that problem and pondered on the question of whether it was more beneficial for people to visit countries and look at their cultures in small groups, either as individuals or with members of their families, rather than in the large hoards which we increasingly see in London, having come through the Channel Tunnel and eaten their sandwiches in the park. That is a debate for another day. I was brought up as an only child and I am a motorcyclist, so I would think that way, anyway, wouldn't I? My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Campsfield House Detention Centre
5.57 p.m.
Earl Russellrose to call attention to Sir David Ramsbotham's report on the terms and conditions under which asylum seekers and immigrants are detained at Campsfield House Detention Centre; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his Answers to a string of Written Questions I asked about two weeks ago. They dealt with the somewhat tangled publishing history of

339
the report. When I tabled those Questions, I thought that a clever Minister would answer, "This report is now published". That is precisely what the Minister did and I thank him warmly for it.
I should also like to congratulate Sir David Ramsbotham on an excellent report and on having done what many of us might have though impossible; lived up to the standard set by his predecessor, Judge Stephen Tumim.
I should also like to pay tribute to the range of professionalism of our Armed Services. When Sir David was appointed, as when Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter was appointed to the Social Security Advisory Committee, some people expected a sharp move to the Right. They did not understand that the Armed Services are public service professions and they did not understand the force of the tradition that we must see the men right first. Both those major-generals have contributed to enlarging the meaning of that quintessentially British phrase "the very model of a modern major-general".
The key finding of the report is that there is an inescapable relationship between the terms on which asylum seekers may be detained and the conditions under which they may be detained. That is why Sir David found that in order to understand what was taking place he had to enter into the precise grounds on which asylum seekers may be detained.
When I was 16, I remember being given, as I am sure many of your Lordships were too, the standard lesson on the causes of the French Revolution. It has changed a great deal since then. I can remember being taken through the procedure of the lettres de cachet under which people could be detained by executive order without cause shown, without limit of time. We were taught how barbarous and how un-British that procedure was. It just goes to show that in nations, as in people, it is unwise to congratulate ourselves that we are not as other men are.
Sir David made three key recommendations in that area: that there should be written reasons for detention; that there should be clear criteria for detention; and that there should be judicial oversight of detention. My noble friend Lord Goodhart will deal in more detail with the legal issues arising from that, which are weighty, and, on occasion, quite complicated.
I want to look at the grounds on which people are detained. I do not dispute for a moment that need for detention may exist. But I wonder whether the need for detention in some cases correlates in any way with the selection of people to be detained. Of course, in the absence of written reasons and judicial oversight, that question is ultimately unverifiable. But it is not obvious to me that there is any relationship between the need for detention and the actual selection of people who are detained.
It might be people who are at risk of absconding. But 51 per cent. of those detained are still waiting for an initial decision. They are very often released for no apparent reason before that initial decision is reached. It might be those whose applications appeared prima facie
340
hopeless. But the success rate for people detained, in the small samples which have been studied, in the samples studied by Dr. Pourgourides, the figure is six out of 15 and in the samples studied by Amnesty International the figure is 10 out of 50. Those are well above average, so it is not instantly apparent that those detained are detained because their cases appear hopeless.
Sir David reports that in some cases, people may be detained because the officer has an instinct—a curious phrase. Here is one example of an officer having an instinct. A Moslem from Kosovo, who did not wish to be drafted into the Serb Army, when interviewed did not wish to be seen as a scrounger. Therefore, he said that he was prepared to look after himself and to work, a very laudable ambition formed in ignorance of British law. As a result of his expressed willingness to work, he was sent to Campsfield House and detained for attempting to defraud under immigration law. That suggests that instinct is not a particularly judicial force.
There are cases of children being detained. Without entering into an argument about doli incapax, with which the Minister is, I am sure, all too familiar, it is rather unlikely that children would be classified properly as bogus asylum seekers. Sir David says that he was informed that only three children have been received in Campsfield. But, during 1997, 27 children were released from Campsfield into the care of Bicester social services. Those statements cannot both be correct.
Of course, the reason is that many of them come from countries whose records are rather more defective than they are in this country and they do not always have available proper proof of age. As an historian, I am perfectly familiar with that. In the 16th and 17th centuries, there are often people said to be of the age of 16 or thereabouts. You have deponents saying, "He was born in the year I broke my leg playing football", but they never remember when that was. The parish clerk of Odiham in Hampshire reported in the year the Civil War ended, "For the last few years, nobody came to tell me these things, so when the war was over, I collected as much information as I could and wrote it down in the register".
In such conditions, precise proof of age is difficult. The Home Office does not recognise any responsibility for checking age. I think it should. It should consider also what happens to children when they are released. There was a case in February of this year of an Angolan boy who was found to be a child and was to be released into the care of Bicester social services but the money had run out, as in local authority social service departments it all too easily does. Therefore, he was detained for another two months simply because the money could not be found to take care of him properly.
A great many people are detained at the port of entry. The Law Society, among others, has commented on that. The suspicion has been formed that this may be being used as a deterrent to discourage people from seeking asylum in this country. First, Sir David points out that detention is not a particularly effective deterrent. I do not believe that our detention record is easily publicised in the back streets of Jaffna. I should also like to ask the Minister to consider very carefully whether, in the light of our

341
international obligations, deterring people from exercising their rights under international law, guaranteed by Section 2 of the Asylum Act 1993, is legal. It is case that I should be interested to hear argued in court.
Sir David reports that in the view of the immigration service and contractor staff, there is little or no consistency or logic in current arrangements for deciding upon detention. If that is the view of those who actually do the job, who am Ito argue? The Minister may wish to argue that that is unfair but in the absence of written reasons and judicial oversight, the Minister is estopped from pursuing that argument. He has shot himself not so much in the foot as in the tongue. I wish him good medical treatment.
The effect on people of being detained for that long and uncertain time, sometimes more than two years, can be demoralising. In prison, there is a category of those at exceptional risk: those who may commit suicide, may create disturbance or may attempt to abscond. In Campsfield, those at exceptional risk have, on occasion, been as high as 45 per cent. That altogether changes the meaning of the word "exceptional". In fact, it may soon be exceptional not to be at exceptional risk.
People may be tempted to argue that that means that the category of exceptional risk has been inflated. I wonder whether that is the demoralising effect of detention without cause shown for an unlimited time. Therefore, I wonder whether that puts the relationship between Group 4 and the prisoners on the wrong footing from the start.
Group 4 does not rank particularly highly among my list of persecuted victims. On the other hand, when Group 4 says that its efforts to try to care for prisoners have been thrown back in its face, I wonder whether that is a comment on the state of mind actually made inevitable by the Government's detention policy. That is why Sir David could not separate a study of conditions inside the prison from a study of the state of the law on detention of asylum seekers.
I have one more moment in which to touch on the issue of the contract between the Home Office and Group 4. We are told that that is commercially confidential. That is simply unacceptable. That people should be detained and deprived of their liberty under conditions about which Parliament is not entitled to know is in itself an abuse. It is also an abuse where we are dealing with matters of international law and, indeed, after the Human Rights Act, of British law, where damages may be awarded. As taxpayers, we have every right to know what liabilities we are incurring. The Minister may say that privatisation makes that impossible. If so, so much the worse for privatisation.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the opportunity to consider this important subject.
The report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons concluded that,
"Group 4 were doing a good job in difficult circumstances."
342
My contacts with Campsfield, including an extended visit yesterday, lead me to endorse that judgement. The Ramsbotham Report makes it clear that nearly all the recommendations made in the 1995 inspection report have been implemented and the management are clearly determined to implement as soon as possible the recommendations made in the current one. Indeed, a number of them have already been implemented.
The facilities at Campsfield range from adequate to good and the staff, whose morale is now beginning to recover from the riots last August, are keen for detainees to make maximum use of them. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the challenge that this provides.
Detainees arrive in detention with a fair degree of stress. They are understandably preoccupied with the progress of their own case, often deeply frustrated by the delays, and subject to highs and lows of moods as their hopes are successively raised or dashed—all this within a context in which they are deprived of their liberty. For some it is a process which goes on for many months. In such circumstances it is easy to become restless or listless, depressed or aggressive and unmotivated for constructive activities.
Much of this anxiety and stress is related to wider issues of immigration and detention policy, to which I shall turn in a few minutes, but the challenge will always be there. That means ensuring the presence of well-motivated, well-trained staff and a regime which provides incentives for detainees to use their time as well as they can under the circumstances.
Against this background I would stress the importance of the report's recommendation 10.90, which says:
"Support from the local NHS Mental Health Service should be improved. A named psychiatrist on the multi-disciplinary team should have clinical responsibility for detainees."
This recommendation is in the process of being implemented but it is an area that needs and must receive continuing attention: first, for people who may become acutely ill, even psychotic; and, secondly, for those who develop various symptoms, including depression, as a result of the multiple traumas they have experienced.
Research carried out by a psychiatrist, Dr. Christina Tourgourides, into the mental health implication of detention asylum seekers and published as A Second Exile revealed the following pattern. Typically, they coped with the first one to two months of detention and broke down on the third or fourth month, when their difficulties would come to the attention of usually, a legal representative, or visitor. Thirty-three per cent. had made an attempt at deliberate self-harm, including attempted hanging. Examination revealed that 27 per cent. fulfilled the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and 60 per cent. for depression. Many had psychosomatic complaints and anxiety. Two were psychotic.
It does not take much imagination to understand why people in detention for many months, having previously experienced trauma of various kinds, need help to retain mental stability. I understand that there is now a nurse with counselling skills on site, as well as visits from two psychiatric social workers. Clearly the more people who

343
have counselling skills, as well as medical qualifications in this field, the better these kinds of problems can be addressed.
The second area I wish to highlight is the Chaplaincy Service, which is strongly affirmed in the report. Campsfield has been described as the most religious place in Oxfordshire. This is, first, because many of the detainees come from countries where religion is a crucial aspect of life. Secondly, because the whole experience of coming to this country and detention throws people back upon their inner resources, and this has the effect of highlighting any religious dimension. At Campsfield there is a special room for Moslem prayers, another one for Sikh prayers and regular, vibrant evangelical worship by Christians from Africa.
The job of a chaplain in such a context is an important one, requiring sensitivity and sophistication. The chaplain in fact acts as a facilitator for all religious groups, ensuring, for example, visits from an Imam when necessary and helping to ensure that the staff as a whole are aware of any significant cultural and religious aspects to life. If these are inadvertently overlooked they can be a cause of tension. Another example is that hunger strikes often take on something of a spiritual fast component and the care of the person on hunger strike will require chaplaincy help. Carelessness over religious practice can often lead to disorder, as people will feel that there is an attack on their identity. For these and other reasons the presence on site of a good chaplain is much appreciated, not only by detainees but by the management.
The important role that chaplaincy plays was also highlighted in the report on Tinsley House as a result of the inspection in August 1997. Chaplaincy there is carried out rather differently with three airport chaplains liaising with a religious affairs/cultural officer, but it was described as "very effective".
The establishment of a satisfactory chaplaincy service at Campsfield has not been without its difficulties. As the statutory framework for detention as a whole is reconsidered, one element in this will, I hope, be a statutory basis for chaplaincy to safeguard the good practice that has been built up at Campsfield.
The Ramsbotham Report recognises that conditions at Campsfield House cannot be separated from wider issues of immigration and detention policy, a view stressed by the noble Earl and with which I wholeheartedly agree. There are a number of important recommendations in the report, on which other noble Lords will no doubt expand, so I shall mention them only briefly. First, all detainees should be given written reasons for their detention. These written reasons should state the individual and exceptional circumstances which require the person's detention. This will ensure that asylum seekers fully understand why they are being detained and will allow them to challenge whether the reasons given are sufficient to justify their deprivation of liberty.
Secondly, there should be judicial oversight into immigration detention. A judicial review of the decision to detain within one week would give an independent
344
determination as to whether it is really necessary to deprive someone of their liberty. At the moment there is a widespread sense of inconsistency about who is detained and who is not. This is very unsettling for those who are already held in a detention centre.
Thirdly, time standards should be applied to different stages of the application process. It is clearly highly unsatisfactory that people can now be in detention for such a long time. This is one of the main causes of tension. Fourthly, a register of authorised solicitors should be compiled and made available. Only those certified as professionally suitable by the Law Society should be allowed to practise at any detention centre. At the moment there is evidence of unscrupulous immigration advisers taking advantage of the desperation of detainees.
Detention is probably a regrettable but necessary consequence of any immigration policy. We all recognise the need for what the Government in their White Paper called a "Firmer, fairer, faster" service and are anxiously looking for the details of this policy when the Government's reviews are complete. I believe the situation at Campsfield has improved, is improving, and will continue to improve, so that the regime of those who have been deprived of their liberty is as humane and constructive as possible. What goes on in detention centres, the atmosphere and mood, is inevitably heavily affected by the overall system in which they operate.
As has already been stressed, the criteria by which people are held in detention centres cannot in the end be totally divorced from the conditions under which they are held. It is only if the system is fair, and is seen to be fair and as speedy as possible, that detention centres can sustain the kind of atmosphere we should all like to see there.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken and, indeed, to the close interest he has always taken in Campsfield House. I warmly endorse his final remarks. We have a situation in Campsfield House which is not a separate phenomenon; indeed, it is set against the background where, as we know, the immigration system is massively overloaded with something like 52,000 people in the queue waiting to have their cases determined. Apparently, even straightforward cases are taking a very long time to resolve. Moreover, as has been said, the power of immigration officers to detain anyone without judicial process, on entry, pending removal or subject to notice of deportation, is virtually unrestricted. We have no idea at all whether the people who are locked up in Campsfield House and elsewhere really need to be held in that secure accommodation because such decisions are shielded from our view. Moreover, the bail hearings, which are part of the process, do not allow the reasons for detention to be properly challenged.
We are also prevented from discussing the system of control itself. Whenever any element of it is challenged, Ministers refer to the various reviews which are under way as an excuse for not being able to comment. An asylum review announced by the Home Office on

345
August 21st last year was expected to report its findings to Ministers, according to the Home Office press release, in late autumn. However, it did not say of which year. Then there was the review of the appeals system and detention policy, announced originally by the previous government in December 1996. Understandably there was a hiatus over the general election, but it was not until September 1997 that Mr. O'Brien wrote to various bodies asking for their comments of the matters to be dealt with by that review. In December the Minister said that he was considering the findings which were supposed to lead to a consultation paper, but that has still not appeared.
Despite the Government's reluctance to make decisions pending the outcome of those reviews, the staff of the IND was cut by 271 people in 1997. Can the Minister say whether he agrees that that must have been a false saving? I ask that because, with the resources that would have been available if those men and women had remained in post, the backlog could have been cut and the cost of supporting those in the queue could have been reduced accordingly.
I believe that the whole idea of detaining a person indefinitely, without proper judicial process, is repugnant. According to the UNHCR, it violates the European Convention on Human Rights and the Chief Inspector has said that he believes that it is a breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government would be sensible to act on the recommendation, which my noble friend will no doubt go into in more detail, to make Immigration Act detention subject to judicial oversight. That might well lead to a reduction in the numbers overall as we know that some 20 per cent. of detainees, according to the Amnesty International study, mentioned by my noble friend in his opening remarks, are later given refugee status or ELR, while others might not seem the exceptional risks to a judge that they do to an immigration officer who knows that his decision is not open to challenge.
Only this morning I had a telephone call from an Iranian who originally entered this country on 23rd March 1997. After spending five months in Rochester in detention, he was accepted as a refugee. So the cost of keeping him in prison for that length of time was to no purpose at all; indeed, it cost £7,500 to do so. It is not unreasonable to suppose that by a combination of more efficient case processing, and judicial oversight, the number of detainees could be reduced from the present level of about 800 to roughly half that number. If the costs fell by the same proportion, the saving to the taxpayer would be £11 million a year. We would also be able to avoid having to keep detainees in prison, because the number of places in Immigration Service facilities, including Campsfield House, would just about be sufficient.
There may be ways of shortening the length of detention without having to wait for legislation. In Haslar, the board of visitors asked the Immigration Service for a list of the six longest serving detainees. Since that procedure was implemented, there has been a marked decrease in the length of detentions. Perhaps the visiting committees at Campsfield and Harmondsworth should see whether they can get the same results. Even
346
better, if the Home Office could publish the statistics, say, at the end of each month, giving the number of detainees in each of the places where the Immigration Act detainees are held and the lengths of detention for the six longest serving detainees in each location, we could see whether it had any effect in reducing the length of their sentences.
I turn now to the circumstances in which people are detained at Campsfield House. This place, together with Tinsley House and Harmondsworth, operates under contract between the Immigration Service and private companies, in contrast to the holding centre at Haslar and the immigration detention wings at Rochester, Winson Green and Holloway which are governed by the Prison Act. In the detention centres there are no opportunities to work and earn wages. In the prisons, it ought to be possible, although I am told that payments have been suspended recently in Haslar for budgetary reasons. I am not sure whether or not that is lawful. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the situation. However, whatever facilities there are for the detainees to get earnings, or payments in lieu of earnings where there is no work available, they should be the same wherever a person is held. I share the Chief Inspector's bafflement concerning the immigration authority's denial of opportunities for detainees to earn money. I wonder whether we really need to wait for the outcome of the review to remedy that anomaly.
The right reverend Prelate spoke about the right of access to religious facilities in Campsfield House. The authorities originally had no understanding at all of the importance of religion to the majority of asylum seekers, which is far greater than in the prisons where the population tends to reflect the secularity of British society. Now, as the right reverend Prelate said, things are greatly improved and I am glad to echo his tribute to the authorities in providing adequate prayer rooms for Moslems and recently also for Sikhs.
It should be borne in mind that Moslems constitute the largest number of detainees in all the places where Immigration Act detainees are held, but no regular statistics are maintained as they are for prisons. Campsfield House and the other centres keep their own records, but these should be collated and published and, I suggest, more frequently than is the case for prison statistics. I say that because the mix of asylum seekers is changing rapidly. On the basis of those figures, provision ought to be made for the accommodation of other faiths and for the attendance of visiting ministers on a scale commensurate to the numbers belonging to each faith.
While the Christian chaplains at Campsfield House and elsewhere in the estate have been very successful in highlighting the needs of other religions, and extracting resources from the authorities, I suggest that it is anomalous that the Church should be required to take a lead in such matters. If the Chief Inspector's main recommendation of a separate detention estate with its own statutory framework and its own set of rules is accepted, the management of religious facilities should not be dependent on the recommendations of a faith to which only a small minority of the users belong.

347
If the detention estate is established as a separate, independent entity, the practice of transferring people from detention centres to prisons must be reviewed. At present, managers of centres appear to have the power to order the transfer of any person to prison and, in the case of Haslar, (which, or course, is operated under the Prison Act) 10 men were moved last week to Winchester and other prisons. That was done without the knowledge of the board of visitors, whereas in the case of Campsfield House the practice is that a member of the visiting committee has to be present at any removal. Clearly, the transfer of inmates from Haslar to other parts of the prison system is subject to fewer constraints. There is a risk that the threat of transfer may be used for minor infractions of good order and discipline in Haslar, which would have to be dealt with by internal methods at Campsfield.
The Chief Inspector recommends that there should be a clear set of rules for the rights and responsibilities of detainees, and the responsibilities and powers of the detention service. That would obviously include provisions for internal adjudication of disciplinary offences, and the imposition of penalties for breaches of the rules. Transfers to the prison system would then be regulated by the code and could not be decided by the managers on their own or even with the consent of the receiving prison. As the detention estate will no doubt be managed entirely by the private sector—and an increasing proportion of the prison service is gong the same way—there would have to be a contract between the two, so as to ensure that places would be kept available to deal with contingencies.
The differences between the powers and responsibilities of the visiting committees and boards of visitors need to be considered. The VCs have no right to enter the centre unannounced and conduct an inspection, as the board of visitors may do in a prison and it is not clear from the Chief Inspector's report whether they actually seek to do so. The residents apparently have no formal right of access to the VC as a prisoner would have to a member of the board of visitors, because this is one of the recommendations made. Can the Minister say whether that has been implemented? Perhaps if this had been in place at the time, the difficulties which led to the riots might have been avoided.
The chairman of the visiting committee told the Chief Inspector about the difficulty of getting suitable volunteers to serve and said that out of a committee of 10 there were only three of ethnic minority background. I cannot believe that in a multicultural city such as Oxford it would be so hard to find additional members from the ethnic minorities. As far as I can ascertain, no approach has been made to the Commission for Racial Equality to see whether it can help. I am sure it could help if it were asked.
The visiting committees are not automatically invited to the annual conference of the boards of visitors, and in any case their role is a different one. Apparently there is no formal mechanism for the exchange of views between VCs, or for the sharing of best practice between them. There should be an annual conference for VCs
348
where the specific problems of the holding centres, with their widely varied populations, could be addressed. This should be attended by IND senior staff.
I look forward to the Home Office's response to the Chief Inspector's report. I know that the Minister has already said that only three of the recommendations are being queried. It might be easier for the Minister to say which of the three the Government do not accept rather than run through all the ones they have accepted. I am aware that some of the recommendations, such as making Campsfield House men only, have already been implemented. Other ways of alleviating the pressures have been discussed. I wish the Government would consider reducing the limit of seven years beyond which an asylum applicant may be given ELR if the first decision has not yet been made. No one should be kept waiting for more than five years. If the IND has failed to take a decision by that time, it is only right that the people involved should be allowed to get on with their lives. However, the whole question of who needs to be detained, and under what conditions, must be considered, and a coherent framework developed, in conformity with our international obligations. We are grateful to the Government for at last addressing these larger problems. We hope that soon they will produce solutions.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Russell has raised the problems of Campsfield House as the subject of this debate. It is a matter in which I have what could be described as a constituency interest. Campsfield House is in the constituency of Oxford West and Abingdon. I am the president of the Oxford West and Abingdon Liberal Democrats and I was their parliamentary candidate in 1992, although Campsfield House of course was not then in use as a detention centre. The present Member of Parliament for the constituency, my honourable friend Dr. Evan Harris, has been a tireless campaigner for improvement in the rights and conditions of the detainees at Campsfield House.
Many issues are raised by Sir David Ramsbotham's report. Some of them have already been addressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and by my noble friend Lord Avebury and I do not wish to repeat them. I propose to concentrate on the question of the legal basis for detention. Under Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom may be detained by an immigration officer pending the conclusion of the examination which determines whether that person is to be granted leave to enter or remain within the United Kingdom. The immigration officer may as an alternative to detention grant the applicant temporary admission subject to restrictions as to residence or employment and subject to a duty to report to the police.
Departmental instructions have been given to immigration officers since 1991 which provide that the policy is to grant temporary admission wherever possible and to authorise detention only where there is no alternative. That, of course, is welcome. What is much less welcome is that those instructions were kept

349
confidential and did not become known to immigration practitioners until 1996—five years later—when they were disclosed in the course of judicial review proceedings. A decision not to allow temporary admission, or to detain someone pending removal from the country, can be challenged by a bail application to an adjudicator under the 1971 Act, as amended in 1996, but only after the lapse of seven days from the first detention. A decision of an immigration officer to detain, or of an adjudicator not to grant bail, can be judicially reviewed on the basis that there is some procedural defect, such as a breach of natural justice, or that the decision was irrational. But the burden of proof in such a case rests on the applicant.
There are a number of international human rights instruments which deal with detention. The most important from the point of view of this country is Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provides in paragraph 1 that,
"No one shall he deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law".
It then sets out the cases. The one that is relevant to this debate is,
"the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition".
Article 5(4) then provides,
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall he decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful".
Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also binds this country, contains similar although not identical provisions.
A consortium of organisations concerned with refugee issues has obtained an opinion from Mr. Nicholas Blake, QC, as to the compatibility of current United Kingdom law and procedure with Article 5 of the convention. A summary of that opinion was issued in a press release at six o'clock today, some half an hour ago.
Mr. Blake is a leading immigration practitioner and is the co-author of the main textbook on immigration law. I have read a copy of Mr. Blake's opinion which is some 16 pages long. It is a thorough and careful document. He came to the following conclusions. First, in any proceedings to examine the lawfulness of detention, the burden of justifying detention should fall on the Government. Secondly, all policy directions and circulars must be published so that lawyers, judges and detainees know the criteria for detention. Thirdly, arrangements for the review of a decision to detain are inadequate. There is at present no duty to bring a detainee before an adjudicator or a magistrate and the initiative to apply to an adjudicator has to come from the detainee. Fourthly, the bar on bail applications for seven days from the first detention is excessive. In no other case, except for detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, can anyone be detained for so long without a right to take his case before a court and seek bail. Fifthly, it should be wholly exceptional to refuse temporary admission or release to an asylum seeker whose claim is prima facie admissible and requires
350
detailed investigation. Sixthly, it is only a very rare and exceptional case that would justify detention for longer than a few weeks.
Sir David Ramsbotham, in paragraph 121 of his report, states,
"In my view, the deprivation of liberty from people asking to enter this country, when it is deemed necessary, should be overseen by judicial process".
He recommends that the United Kingdom should move towards judicial oversight of immigration detention.
Mr. Blake's opinion—to which I have referred—shows that Sir David's recommendation is not only desirable but essential if the United Kingdom is to comply with Article 5. It is not right that detainees seeking asylum should have fewer rights than prisoners on remand. I believe that the following principles should apply. First, asylum seekers detained by an immigration officer should be brought before an adjudicator or magistrate within 48 hours of first detention for hearing. Secondly, at that hearing the burden should be on the Home Office to justify the continuation of the detention ordered in the first place by the immigration officer. Thirdly, where continued detention is authorised by the adjudicator or magistrate, the detention should be reviewed at regular intervals of not more than 28 days, with the burden being once again on the Home Office to justify a further extension of the period of detention. That would be a way to put considerable pressure on the Government to speed up the whole process of investigation, in which clearly priority ought to be given to those who are in detention. I wish to add my strong support for Sir David Ramsbotham's proposal that all detainees should be provided with written reasons for their detention.
Sir David, in his magisterial report, has done the country great service. It has been reported—I do not know whether accurately or not—that he has had his knuckles rapped for going outside his remit and into questions of policy. However, I do not see how he could have reported properly on Campsfield House without going into the question as to why people are sent there, as well as the question of what happens to them once they are there. I therefore hope that the Government will act on this report and, specifically, that they will act on his recommendation that detention should become subject to judicial oversight.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, let me first place on record my respect for the Minister. He has an admirable record in the field of race and community relations. Over the short period that I have been in this House, he has already given way on some major amendments relating to data protection and the Crime and Disorder Bill, for which I hold him in considerable respect.
This has been a useful debate for two reasons. First, the Chief Inspector of Prisons talks about the conditions that he found at the Campsfield House Detention Centre. He goes on to say that the conditions are unsafe for asylum seekers and that there are no clear rules and sanctions in relation to detainees and no legal duty imposed upon staff. Only this morning I was able to

351
obtain the reports for 1995–96 of the visiting committees. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has already stolen my thunder by using much of the information contained in them; I am grateful that I do not have to repeat it. In any case, the word of the cloth is more important than that of the politician.
I want to stress the second reason why Sir David Ramsbotham's report is important. He has rightly called for reform of the current procedures used to detain asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. Let me therefore comment, as other noble Lords have done, on these two important issues.
Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. We know, because we have been at the receiving end of comments on such matters, often in this House. Let me make it clear that no one, least of all on this side of the House, advocates an open door policy. What is required is not emotive language, but a clear and rational look at the situation with which we are faced. Despite the nature and effects of various immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious. I believe that every country has a right to determine its immigration and asylum policy. That cannot be disputed. Those policies will command more respect if the control procedures are manifestly seen to be fair.
The purpose of immigration and asylum procedures is not in dispute; it is to admit those who are eligible and, subject to the appropriate humanitarian principles, exclude and remove those who are not. No one can quibble about that. But in any administrative system questions arise about priorities. Administration of the control procedures is no exception. In this instance, the need to exclude those who are ineligible means that checks must be made to determine who is eligible and who is not. Again, no one can quibble about that. However, the greater the emphasis on excluding the ineligible, the more intensive the checks must be. The more intensive they are, and the more complicated they are to administer, the greater will be the delay and suffering to those who are eligible. If the objective of excluding those who are ineligible is taken to its extremes, in dealing with matters that are often not susceptible to documentary proof, the risk of excluding those who are eligible to remain here but lack the resources to prove it becomes very serious indeed.
No wonder our immigration and asylum policies are in a shambles. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Minister. The heavy emphasis on excluding the ineligible, rather than giving prompt and sympathetic attention to the rights of those who are eligible, has led to administration practices which result in a particular adverse effect on asylum seekers in this country.
I do not need to remind the Government of their manifesto commitment. The manifesto states:
"The system for dealing with asylum seekers is expensive and slow—there are many undecided cases dating back beyond 1993. We will ensure swift and fair decisions on whether someone can stay or go".
352
But what is the reality today? There are presently 50,000 applications with the Home Office and 23,000 appeals. On the Home Office Minister's own admission, the current system is in disarray, and in a mess. There has been no dispute on that point between the Minister and Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons. There are currently over 700 immigration detainees. The cost to the taxpayer is enormous. I ask noble Lords to imagine the public outcry in this country if 700 British citizens were detained in such conditions in a third world country. "Inhuman", "degrading", and "unacceptable" would be the types of headline we should see.
Why is it that this country detains more people for longer periods and with less judicial supervision than any other civilised country? Except for Australia, I know of no other country which detains those whose asylum claims are under consideration. We need to examine our legislation, which provides for the indefinite detention—not on the authority of a court of law but on that of an immigration officer—of anyone who is not granted admission to the United Kingdom or who is liable to deportation or removal. A country which prides itself on its democracy and legal institutions does not allow presumption in favour of bail, as there is in criminal cases. There is no judicial supervision or review of detention. No criteria for detention in individual cases are published or monitored. As I said, on average, some 700 asylum seekers are held in detention at any one time; and over half are new arrivals in the United Kingdom. The Refugee Council has cited a figure of over £20 million per year as the estimated cost of our detention policy.
Why do we detain asylum seekers? Of course detention can be justified as a means of controlling those who may abscond or fail to comply with removal directions. No one disputes the necessity of these measures in specific cases. But there seems to be another side to the argument. Immigration and asylum practitioners would confirm that detention is used as a deterrent and applied on a very broad basis.
In the past, we have seen a range of measures which have made us the laughing-stock of the world community. Noble Lords may recall that, as early as 1987, the Home Office used a converted car ferry to house some 100 asylum seekers. According to a letter to the Guardian which I picked out this morning, the experiment ended in ignominy when, during the storm of 16th October 1987, the ferry broke free of its moorings and began to sink. If those 100 souls had drowned, I hate to think of the impact on the status of this country in world opinion. I am reliably informed that even at the present time discussions are going on. I quote from the Guardian:
"Westminster City Council and a number of other London boroughs have been examining the possibility of housing asylum seekers on floating platforms formerly used to accommodate oil rig workers".
The only reason they have not got it is that they have not been able to get a mooring on the River Thames. It may be simply speculation, but can you imagine one of our biggest tourist attractions in the country being a ship

353
moored on the river with asylum seekers stuck in it? What sort of reputation would we have and how devalued would we be in the eyes of the world?
In my previous job at the Commission for Racial Equality, I met a number of detainees, some of whom had gone on hunger strike. Some had contemplated suicide, others simply waited for the day when a decision would be taken in their case. Life was meaningless to all those people. It was clear that they were protesting not only about the conditions under which they were kept but about the fact that they were detained without the authority of a court. In other words, they were subjected to criminal sanctions without a criminal law being applied to them.
It is easy to spell out some important factors about refugees and asylum seekers. However, I shall avoid the temptation as the limitation on time would prevent me. I wish to come out with a very practical suggestion. One of the crucial points that we need to examine is precisely where we go from here. No one can dispute that the country has a right to an immigration and asylum policy. But one of the most important suggestions came out when the present Minister, the Shadow Home Secretary, was speaking in the House of Commons about the need to take the asylum and immigration issue out of the political arena. As a Shadow Home Office Minister—I am talking about Jack Straw—he recommended setting up a standing advisory committee which would look at the Asylum and Immigration Bill to see whether it could be dealt with on a non-controversial basis. That suggestion was rejected by Michael Howard who was Home Secretary at the time.
I wish to come back to that suggestion. We are no longer talking now about the Asylum and Immigration Bill because it is now the Asylum and Immigration Act. But I believe there is a need to take the issue out of the political arena. I believe that there is a justification for setting up such a committee which would advise the Home Secretary on matters of immigration and asylum and those who are detained. I believe it is a positive way to take the matter forward. It is also necessary, for such a parliamentary committee to be successful, to try to get immigration practitioners on the committee. They can proffer their opinion to the Home Office on issues in which they are expert. I believe that at the end of the day the test of a civilised nation is how we implement our control measures. That will determine our status on the world stage.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in offering my congratulations and thanks to Sir David Ramsbotham for the report and the generality of the work he has been doing in succession to Judge Stephen Tumim. I also wish to echo what my noble kinsman said about how lucky we are with our servants from the Armed Forces in terms of what they have been able to offer us, both in the work of Sir David Ramsbotham and of Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter on the Social Security Advisory Committee.
I shall attempt to be brief, as a number of questions have been put to the Minister and we all wish to give him as much time as possible, so that we may hear as
354
many of the questions answered, even if he does not necessarily go through all 97 of the recommendations. We have heard that the Government have agreed that they will accept three fewer than the 97 and I take that to be 94 of the recommendations. I hope that in due course we shall hear which three have not received the official seal of approval.
I start by saying that we on these Benches are in agreement with the statement made by Sir David in his report at paragraph 1–10. He says:
"Almost everybody acknowledges—"
even my noble kinsman Lord Russell said it—
"that some facility of detention is necessary to preserve the integrity of immigration control. Without detention those refused leave to enter or remain in the country, previous immigration offenders and those with a previous history of absconding would all have to be released into the community regardless of the circumstances of their case, unless they could be removed within hours. Detention facilities are also important during the initial process of validating undocumented, unidentified and unco-operative clandestine entrants, and in dealing with organised, blatant abuse of asylum claims".
I believe that we can say that we are all in agreement on that point: that there must be some form of detention available to the authorities. Views were expressed strongly by noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the right reverend Prelate. There are a number of other concerns. Sir David expressed those concerns in terms of the numbers being detained, but he also seemed to suggest that there was a case for providing yet further space. That seems to contradict the idea that there are too many being detained. Obviously he also had concerns about conditions in the detention centre and concerns about the whole question of judicial oversight, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. But I believe that we can all agree on the basic principle that something is necessary.
I should also like to say—this was supported by the comments from the right reverend Prelate—that there was no criticism of the work of Group 4. I take it that that has also been accepted by Ministers in the Home Office, because we hear that, the contract having initially been extended for a further three months, I think it was, late last year, it has now been extended for a further three years. That seems to make it clear that Ministers in the Home Office are satisfied with the work of Group 4 and, as Sir David makes clear in paragraph 9.01, that there have been considerable improvements since that earlier inspection in 1994. Sir David also accepts that by and large Group 4 is doing a perfectly good job.
Nevertheless, the report raises some considerable concerns for all of us. It is obvious that the regime is not satisfactory. That is something which the Minister's party made clear to us on a number of occasions when in Opposition. Having made quite a song and dance about those things in opposition, the Government have now had a little under a year to make considerable progress in the field. Very little has happened.
We have heard a great deal about the number of reviews conducted and understand that two deal with the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the reviews, one on the Asylum and Immigration Bill, to which I shall come; the other was referred to earlier

355
today at Question Time in questions on asylum appeals. In a recent Question for Written Answer which Sir Raymond Powell put to the Prime Minister asking for a full list of all reviews by the Government, there was a pretty extensive and exhausting list. I can only find one review of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, I do not know why the other one has been left out. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to comment on that in due course and tell me a little more about it.
I turn first to the review into immigration and asylum appeals that has been mounted. I understand from an Answer that was given to one of my honourable friends in another place, Mr. James Clappison that that review came to its conclusions and put them before Ministers as early as January of this year. I also understand from another Written Answer to my honourable friend—it was published only yesterday—that the review is complete and a consultative document will be published as soon as possible. We should like to hear from the Minister exactly what "as soon as possible" means, whether it means "shortly" or "soon", when we shall hear exactly what has appeared in that review; and why we have had to wait quite so long for the document.
There is also the comprehensive spending review—a study of the asylum process. I understand that it is to be published in July according to certain intentions that have been voiced. Looking at the press release that Mr. Mike O'Brien, the Home Office Minister for Immigration and Nationality put out on 16th April, when referring to that review and having accepted the majority of the 1998 recommendations—not the 1997 recommendations—he said that the outcome of the reviews would be announced shortly. I appreciate of course that when government announcements are made, "shortly" can extend over a considerable time. The noble Lord told us on Maundy Thursday that we would be seeing, for example, the Bill dealing with the registration of political parties very soon after Easter. We are now in the third week after Easter, and we still have not seen it. I repeat that we should like to see that before we continue with those Bills to which the measure is relevant. I also make it clear that we should like to see the result of the review which has been promised "shortly" by Mr O'Brien.
I have one other question. It is of a fairly technical nature but one of which I imagine the noble Lord and his officials will be aware. This is again a matter that has been dealt with in Answers to Written Questions from my honourable friend Mr. Clappison in the other place. Indeed he put down a series of questions relating to the use of information technology in processing asylum claims, and the contracts which the Home Office had with Siemens and others for dealing with these problems. Again, those questions were answered yesterday. I imagine that they will be fresh in the minds of officials. I must say that I find the Answer given by Mr. O'Brien somewhat confusing. He talks about the award of the Casework Programme contract, as it was known as in the contract with Siemens, but does not make clear whether information technology is now in place and whether it can be brought forward in order to assist the processing of claims.
356
One gains the impression—I emphasise that it is an impression and I should like some confirmation in this regard—that the Government have put this "on ice" because they do not want to find the savings that would be needed to fund this from staff cuts within the department, and so they have not been able to process the claims as quickly as would have been desirable. When may we hear that the casework system will be available; and when may we learn what effect it will have on dealing with those claims?
As I have said, a large number of questions have been put to the noble Lord and I trust that he will give them his full attention. But of course, as always, if the noble Lord wishes to write to me on any point, and particularly on the last one, I should be more than happy to accept that.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not seek to try to defend what is not capable of being defended, and it is perfectly plain from the Secretary of State's very speedy and bold response to the Ramsbotham Report that he concurred with the overwhelming bulk of what Sir David recommended. I am grateful, first, to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as always, for initiating this debate. I am also grateful to Sir David Ramsbotham, in particular, for the quality of his report. However, I think it ought to be recognised that out of 98 recommendations we immediately accepted 95 and raised queries about only three. That is not a bad response and it is not a response, I think, that has always been the common experience of your Lordships' House in recent years.
Of the three recommendations which have been queried, it is not right to say that they have been ruled out. Referring, first, to the building of a visitors centre, we cannot implement that at the moment because of costs. The second recommendation referred to the question of applying time standards to different stages of the application process, and there are questions there about fairness which might involve even greater use of judicial review. The third, and I think this was the most important in most of your Lordships' minds, was the question of judicial oversight to which I will come in a moment. I stress that that is the subject of query: it has not been rejected.
I should like to try to identify the major themes which I believe were present in all your Lordships' speeches. The questions that were asked seemed to resolve themselves to the following. First, who do you detain? Secondly, on what basis? Thirdly, in what conditions? Fourthly, subject to what review? Fifthly—and extremely important—as part of what overall scheme of legislation? Further—the last question of significance—subject to what internal discipline? That is referring to the discipline of providing written reasons.
I believe—and I entirely concur with what all your Lordships have said—without exception that the giving of written reasons is extremely important on at least the following bases. First, I believe quite firmly that if you have to give written reasons it improves the decision-making process, whether or not those reasons are to be published or scrutinised in a judicial process.

357
But it is extremely important that those written reasons should be provided to any detained person so that he or she will know and have at least a degree of moral consolation that their detention is not an unthinking exercise of administrative power. It is an extremely important step that the Secretary of State has immediately accepted that recommendation. I do not believe that it can be overstressed.
It is also important that the report by Sir David was requested by the Secretary of State. That is not without significance. The tendency of some government departments in recent history has been to hope that the thing will go away and to pull the duvet over the ministerial head. That did not happen here and it was perfectly plain to the Secretary of State when he commissioned the report that there were likely to be findings which would be adverse to the then existing regime. I stress "the then existing regime" because it is fair to observe, as a number of your Lordships have done, that the performance of Group 4, in terms of staff delivery of performance was commended. It is noteworthy—I mention it only in passing—that the quality of facilities there was also commended.
Quite soon after the disturbances I went to Campsfield House to satisfy myself about what was there and I went, I must say, with my mind significantly coloured, if not prejudiced, by a good deal of criticism which I found to be unfounded. The facilities which had been destroyed in the disturbances were actually of rather good quality. It surprised me, I am sorry to say—perhaps I was unduly cynical and sceptical—but the fact that the facilities were good is certainly referred to positively in the Ramsbotham report.
As regards judicial oversight, we have taken due note of that recommendation. No decision has yet been taken, but it is only a matter of a few days since the final report has been published. I can tell noble Lords that detailed discussions have been taking place with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope to be able to say shortly what the outcome of those discussions was. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, may say, "Soon and shortly do not mean much"; but they do. He rightly says, "You promised me something after Easter. Two or three weeks have gone by and I have received nothing". I realise that I am going at a tangent, but I am dealing with a specific point.
We had every intention of publishing the Registration of Political Parties Bill—I gave that indication on Maundy Thursday. On Good Friday the negotiations in Northern Ireland came to what most people thought was a welcome conclusion. This is not an excuse; it is the full explanation to which the House is entitled. In terms of parliamentary drafting, the resource is a scarce and limited one. The conclusion was reached—I believe rightly—that we should dedicate that resource to the question of drafting Northern Ireland legislation and therefore we had to hold back slightly on the Registration of Political Parties Bill.
I believe that was a prudent and, indeed, inevitable decision. Your Lordships would have complained if we had got those priorities wrong. The virtually final
358
draft—if I can put it in that way—is almost to hand, so it should not be long. I deal with that point; it is outside the context of our present discussions, but the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked specifically about that.
Perhaps I may make some further observations. The question of lawfulness—I put it in shorthand, bearing in mind my time allocation—of our regimes, both in law and practice, was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Justice courteously sent me a copy of Nicholas Blake's opinion. I received it at one o'clock today—I am not complaining about that: I am simply indicating that the time to take full advice on that has been fairly limited. We do not believe that our policy is in breach of Article 5. We believe that we are fulfilling our obligations internationally. However, we will look carefully at all the points raised in the paper, a number of which—it will not come as any surprise to your Lordships—we have already been considering as part of the detention review.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, again with his usual scruple, gave me advance notice of some of the matters he intended to raise. One of them concerned the lack of ethnic minority representation on visiting committees. That is not something that is criticised in the Ramsbotham report; nevertheless, I had it researched. Apparently, one-third of the visiting committee membership at Campsfield, Tinsley and Harmondsworth comes from ethnic minorities. I do not believe that to be altogether unreasonable.
Visiting committees attend the Boards of Visitors annual conferences and the Immigration and Nationality Department sent representatives, on invitation, in the past. We are perfectly happy, should the visiting committees conduct their own annual conferences, for the Immigration and Nationality Department to attend.
Visiting committees have unfettered access to detention centres and detainees, if need be in private. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for raising the topic of religion. Every effort is being made at Campsfield to assist detainees to practise their own religious beliefs and to receive appropriate spiritual guidance.
The noble Lord transmitted a message to me which I understood to mean that 10 detainees had recently been transferred to Winchester Prison. In fact, 10 detainees were transferred from Haslar to Winchester and others to different locations. That decision was made because there had been disruptive activity and it was thought that the general regime was being disrupted.
The average length of detention, on the information I am given, is 65 days. Obviously, it being an average, some cases take longer. However, I want to make quite plain that one of our main objectives is to reduce that average time of detention in cases in which detention is longer than the norm. That is our intention. It is easy—I dare say I have done it myself in the past—to scoff at reviews; it is much more sensible to try and address longstanding defects in a considered way.
We welcome what the chief inspector said on safety at Campsfield House. There have been extensive physical improvements—the zoning of accommodation and the fire alarm system to ensure that the physical

359
environment is more conducive to safety and control. The chief inspector wished for there to be no women detainees at Campsfield House; there no longer are any. I give that as an indication only of what the Government in the person of the Secretary of State have done. I recognise that a reasonable counter-response to that would be that these are details; they are incidents. That is true. But I return to my point that to accept 95 out of 98 recommendations is a record that most governments could feel content with, if not complacent about.
We agree the general objective of not using prisons for detainees. That means that we shall have to look for accommodation elsewhere. I do not pretend to your Lordships that in financial terms the resource will necessarily be forthcoming. It may mean the new denomination of existing prison estate accommodation for detainees.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right that the new contract was renewed from 1st May this year for a three-year period. It sets out the responsibility of the company to run the centre. One of the defects rightly identified by the chief inspector was that there was inadequate monitoring. That comes back to my point that internal structural disciplines by way of monitoring are extremely important. That has been well taken on board. There will be more monitoring by better qualified persons and the ultimate continuing opportunity of monitoring by the chief inspector should he wish to return.
All I can say about the reviews is that they are nearing completion. We want to obtain recommendations to remove weaknesses in the system which the Government and the chief inspector identified. Many of the weaknesses, the deficiencies and the wrongs at Campsfield were perhaps specific to Campsfield itself. But we must look at the overall system in the same way as noble Lords spoke to it.
Agreement has been reached—taking up the right reverend Prelate's point—for a panel of psychiatrists to be available to examine detainees at Campsfield who are assessed by staff at Campsfield House as requiring further treatment. Liaison has already begun with the local national health authorities in the area.
A question was raised in relation to the Group 4 contract. Aspects of that contract are commercially confidential. They relate not only to present arrangements, but also to future arrangements. Whether that is a perfect answer to the question raised by the noble Earl, I cannot say. I have no authority to go beyond saying that I question it. However, I shall consult with Mr. O'Brien to see whether or not he and I can look at the contract to consider whether anything further can be done. That is not a promise; it is what I hope is a reasonable response to a reasonable question. It may be that I shall be able to offer no further solace. However, I take the point as one of principle and that is what I shall do. I repeat again that I have no authority relating to disclosure of the contract. It is not my departmental responsibility—I do not hide behind that fact; I simply indicate that it is not for me to determine other colleagues' departmental conclusions.
360
Contract monitoring by Home Office officials will continue daily on site at Campsfield. Senior Home Office officials and audit teams will visit at regular intervals. Of course, the visiting committee is a useful monitoring tool and, as I mentioned earlier, the Chief Inspector of Prisons will want to return to Campsfield House, I imagine, at some time which he thinks appropriate.
No one could have read the report without feeling that things had gone wrong at Campsfield. No one can be happy that it was a breakdown of an internal regime and disturbances which led to the report. It is a considerable piece of work. It is a work of public service.
I conclude by making two further points. First, we have tried to show that we mean what we say about firmness, fairness and expedition. We have certainly been expeditious in responding to the report. I hope your Lordships will agree that the response was positive. Secondly, there were a large number of questions, about which I make no complaint. We should all have been derelict in our duty if your Lordships had not put the questions to me. However, if there are some that I have not answered—in particular, I am aware of the detailed question about IT, which I have not answered—I shall respond to your Lordships in the usual way.
This has been a short debate and I am personally grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell—not for the first time and not, I dare say, for the last—for introducing it. It has been of benefit to the Government to have had this debate.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say how pleased I am that he has been able to confirm that the Government have accepted 95 out of 98 recommendations. I wish to refer to recommendation 10.26 which concerns the transfer of previous medical records relating to detainees to detention centres. Perhaps I may suggest that the healthcare manager or the visiting medical officer obtains these directly via professional contact from the doctor or surgeon who has previously treated the detainee rather than go through the bureaucratic procedure of applying to the health authority or the Prison Service, which often takes months to get an adequate response. Because of linguistic and cultural difficulties arising from the background of detainees it is important that previous work done on their health problems by other people should be made available.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, recommendation 10.26 states:
"Arrangements should he agreed between the Prison Service and the Immigration and Nationality Service on the transfer of medical records".
We have agreed that and this is what we have done. Agreement has been reached with the Prison Service. Dedicated fax machines are being installed in medical centres to facilitate the rapid transfer of essential medical information. It is not a question of months; it is fairly prompt on the modern fax.
7.22 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a great deal more than a figure of speech to say that I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. There are many occasions when I feel pride in both my House and my party. This is one of those occasions. I trust the House will not misunderstand me if I mention the two in the same breath. I mean it as a compliment.
This has been a distinguished debate. I wish to take up just a very few points. I agreed with a great deal of what my noble kinsman Lord Henley said. He drew attention to recommendation 10.05:
"The size of the Detention Centre estate should be expanded".
I think I might draw attention to the remainder of the sentence:
"and the number of prison places used for immigration detention purposes greatly reduced".
Sir David was drawing attention to the mismatch between the facilities and the pressure put on them. That is all Sir David was saying.
The Minister has made me think back to A. E. Housman's Fragment of a Greek Tragedy in which one of the characters says, "My purpose in asking is to know." That is rare. The Minister's purpose in answering is to answer. That is even rarer. I thank him for it very warmly indeed. I was grateful for what he said about written records. I was particularly grateful, though I have not misinterpreted it and realise the limit that he must place upon it, for what he said about the contract. To know that that argument will be seriously considered inside the Home Office is something I value deeply. I think he is entitled to pride himself on the number of recommendations the Government have accepted. I congratulate him.
Three recommendations have not been accepted: first,the visitor centre, because of the cost. I understand that.Secondly, the time standards for stages. As I read that in the report, I thought it an attractive recommendation but one that would be really difficult to implement. I understand his reasoning. Thirdly, on the judicial oversight, which is the most important of the whole lot, I entirely take his point about the need for consultation and the need for care about how it is to be done if it is to be done. I am delighted to hear that consultations with the Lord Chancellor's Department have begun. I wait with great hopefulness for the resolution of those discussions. I am sure that the Minister will take into account the opinion of Mr. Nicholas Blake, which my noble friend Lord Goodhart quoted. I understand that the Government do not think that it is breaking our international legal obligations and I am sure the Minister understands that the final judgment on that will not be reached by the Government. I hope we never need to find out. In that hope, and in gratitude to all those who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Property Rights in Eastern Europe
7.25 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Crossrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take to encourage eastern European candidate member states of the European Union to pursue domestic policies which respect private property rights and to provide for the restitution of property confiscated from British nationals, in conformity with Resolution 1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the general question that I wish to raise could hardly run wider or deeper into the economic, political and constitutional requirements of free societies. Since I shall have something to say about another country, Slovenia, that has much to learn about the niceties of freedom, I would dwell for a moment on the remarkable example set by this unelected House at the present time. It is not commonly seen as a cradle of democracy. Let all men wonder, therefore, that, as a humble, individual, independent Back Bencher, a mere life Member of your Lordships' House—what might be thought the lowest form of lordly life—without encouragement, by your leave or the least influence by parties, or Ministers, or Whips, I am able to require a senior member of Her Majesty's Government to come to this place, to listen to my plea and, I hope, to give some account of the Government's attitude. I am nonetheless greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for stepping into the breach amid his many other pressing responsibilities.
Large general principles are often best illustrated and brought to life by particular examples. The principle in question here concerns the western conception of the rule of law as the surest guarantee of security for every citizen's person and property. My Question amounts to asking whether Her Majesty's Government agree that a British citizen is entitled to expect equal protection of the law from another supposedly friendly government, especially a government seeking to enter the comity of western nations, and more especially one anxious to qualify for European Union membership, and, of course, for European Union subsidies.
The particular case, of which I have given notice, concerns Dr. Ljubo Sirc, born in Slovenia, Yugoslavia, whose story can be briefly recounted. Having graduated in law and economics at the University of Ljubljana in 1943, he patriotically joined Tito's partisans and tramped the hills wearing the red button. After demobilisation he rejoiced to hear of the Churchill/Roosevelt declaration in favour of multi-party democracy in eastern Europe. In that spirit he joined in the efforts to organise a democratic opposition to the ruling communists and was on good terms with western diplomats, especially the British, whom he had met in his capacity as official interpreter. In addition to immaculate English, Dr. Sirc now speaks German, French, Italian and, most recently, Russian.
In the first flush of the post-war communist dictatorship, he was denounced for treason at a show trial. In 1947, along with others, he was sentenced to death and loss of all family property in Slovenia.

363
Execution was commuted to 10 years' imprisonment and after seven years he was released. He promptly escaped—this was in 1955—and made his way via Switzerland to England where I first met him in 1961. All these events are vividly documented in his autobiography Between Hitler and Tito. He took up an academic career starting in Bangladesh, became a British citizen in 1964 and eventually retired in 1985 from Glasgow University, in the very heartlands of New Labour, where he now lives with his British family when he is not back in Slovenia.
The first democratic government of the new Slovene Republic in 1990 lost no time quashing his sentence in January 1991 and passing an Act providing for the denationalisation and return of confiscated property to all who had been wrongly dispossessed. One aim was to restore capital into the hands of entrepreneurs who in the 1930s had remarkably raised Slovene output close to that of neighbouring Austria.
Alas, in 1992 a new government took over under the nominal banner of social democracy and liberal democracy, mouthing the rhetoric of a market economy and entrepreneurship but predominantly controlled by former communists and their hardline supporters and, in that respect, unlike Poland which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will be talking about shortly.
Under President Kucan and Prime Minister Janez Drnovsek there have been endless legal delays and administrative procrastination indicating a rooted reluctance to return property which would obviously strengthen the independent enterprise sector and reduce political control of the economy. Hence here we are, seven years later, and Dr. Sirc still awaits restitution of most of his family's residential and productive property. Meanwhile, a campaign to emasculate the law on denationalisation and rehabilitation was orchestrated by Igor Bavcar who is—believe it or not—the Minister for Europe.
In January 1998 a new law was enacted retrospectively discriminating against the victims of communist terror whose claims were to be assessed under vague new general rules. This not only violated the constitution but was in clear conflict with the most solemn provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and, even more specifically, of Resolution 1096 drawn up in 1996 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. This resolution is a splendid declaration of the liberal temper of the West which is a million miles—or should I say 1.6 million kilometres—from the opportunistic, even shifty, manoeuvres of fancy-named, so-called "democratic " parties still imprisoned in their communist past. I ask noble Lords to listen to the fine phrases of the resolution:
"The heritage of former Communist totalitarian systems includes over centralisation, bureaucratisation, monopolisation and over-regulation".
It sounds almost like Mr. Blair or even Margaret Thatcher, lecturing those European corporatists. The resolution goes on to warn against,
"collectivism and conformism to blind obedience and other totalitarian thought patterns"
364
and specifies what it calls the,
"dangers of a failed transition process"
which it goes on to describe as,
"oligarchy instead of democracy, corruption instead of the rule of law, and organised crime instead of human rights. At worst, the result would be the 'velvet restoration' of a totalitarian regime".
The resolution is so good that one cannot have too much of it. It continues:
"Material compensation should be awarded to (rehabilitated) victims of totalitarian justice, and should not be (much) lower than the compensation accorded to those unjustly sentenced for crimes under the standard penal code in force".
For the avoidance of doubt, as lawyers say, Article 10 of the resolution by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe re-emphasises that,
"property illegally or unjustly seized by the state, nationalised, confiscated or otherwise expropriated during the reign of communist totalitarian systems in principle be restituted to its original owners".
Its concluding words are:
"Claims and conflicts relating to individual cases of property restitution should be decided by the courts".
It is sad to report that the present communist-tainted government is now seeking to employ the abomination of retrospection—in defiance of the Slovene constitution—to amend the 1991 law on restitution and rehabilitation so as to discriminate against the victims of the earlier communist terror. Thus a government which aspires to join the European Union flaunts its contempt for the civilised requirements of the Council of Europe resolution.
This retrospective law is now to be challenged and is before the constitutional court, which was mercifully established under the coalition government in 1991, but which is now being subjected to the most deplorable intimidation from the state controlled television and press. Thus the national television first misrepresented the position of the constitutional court, then challenged the chief justice to respond and finally refused to publish his answer.
In a quite unprecedented press release the secretary of the constitutional court expressed,
"grave concern over the extremely immature and irresponsible conduct, not only of influential Slovenian politicians, but also of reputable lawyers and, not least, of national television, who show their contempt for what we could call the heritage of European legal civilisation".
Dr. Sirc and others await the verdict of the constitutional court. It is a test case since it will clearly take much courage for the judges to rule against the government's retrospective and discriminatory schemes to weaken the rights of the victims of earlier communist oppression. What is at stake is nothing less than Slovenia's fitness to be regarded as even an apprentice candidate for European Union membership.
I understand that Her Majesty's Government cannot intervene in another country's judicial proceedings even in the interests of protecting the property of a British citizen, but I urge the Minister to take note of these deplorable proceedings and to reaffirm Resolution 1096. Indeed, its final words specifically call on the West to give "aid and assistance" to these emerging democracies. The best aid and assistance we can give is gentle but firm advice on the need to uphold the rule of

365
law in the defence of the rights of all law-abiding citizens to the peaceful enjoyment of their freedom and lawful property. I understand that German citizens receive favourable treatment on restitution partly because the German Government have made their presence felt in eastern Europe. I now hope for a judicial word or two from the Minister on behalf of British citizens. A ringing reaffirmation of the Council of Europe's resolution would have the further advantage of guiding other governments in eastern Europe, even including Hungary and Poland, which are under constant domestic pressure to backslide into old communist ways.
In conclusion, as an economist, I would add that the scrupulous respect for property rights would have the further advantage of encouraging both domestic and international investment in the future economic prosperity of Slovenia and other eastern European countries which we all wish to see flourish.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to make a contribution which may achieve a dubious distinction of being simultaneously somewhat wide of the mark and also too specific: wide of the mark in that I do not address the latter part of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and too specific in that I wish to focus on just one country, Poland, as a case study or exemplar.
However, I do have the temerity to speak, despite these limitations, because I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this important debate on a subject which is of fundamental significance. I appreciate enormously the robust way in which he introduced the topic. I really appreciate the opportunity the debate provides to pay tribute to the remarkable achievements of the countries of central and eastern Europe in their transition from old-style communist, centralised economic systems towards the development of free markets, the encouragement of private enterprise and the right to the freedom to own private property.
I wish to take the example of Poland because I knew the situation there very well during the dark years of repression under the Soviet Union and of martial law during the 1980s. Then, I visited regularly under the auspices of two organisations, the Medical Aid for Poland Fund (MAPF) and the Jagiellonian Trust. I now visit in very different capacities, on visits which would have seemed inconceivable only 10 years ago. The differences between those visits then and my visits now are dramatic and illustrate the fundamental links between economic and political systems as well as the enormous scale of the change brought about by the emergence from totalitarian Communism to political democracy and its associated rights, including property rights.
Similar transformations have been achieved in other countries of eastern and central Europe. I have some direct experience of Romania and of the Czech Republic. However, given the time constraints, I should like to concentrate on Poland because there are many similarities, although there are, of course, many differences also.
366
I should like to begin with a brief trip down memory lane to highlight the scale and scope of change accompanying the economic and political transformation over the past few years. With MAPF, I used to travel on 32-tonne trucks, taking essential medical supplies which were themselves a reflection of the dire situation in a country under Communist rule. Those trucks did not contain sophisticated, modern technical equipment; they were filled with cargoes which were direct responses to urgent requests from Poland: for such basics as bandages for the University Hospital in Warsaw; catheters; syringes, needles; incubators for new-born babies; and gluten-free flour for people suffering from coeliac disease.
That dire lack of essential medical supplies was reflected in the statistics of the harsh realities of disease and death. National life expectancy for men fell five years in five years—from 69 to only 65 between 1985–89. In 1989, only 3 per cent. of men in southern Poland lived to receive their pensions at the age of 65. Those figures are almost impossible to imagine in a country on the continent of Europe from the perspective of western Europe, but those figures are repeated in all the other countries of eastern and central Europe and in the Soviet Union.
However, health statistics are only one aspect of the interrelated strands of a tapestry of man-made catastrophe. The shortages of other essentials such as food, and particularly citrus fruit, had to be seen to be believed. In all the years I visited Poland between 1982 and 1989, I saw only one lemon for sale—outside a Communist Party shop, at a price of £12. People had to queue for hours outside shops with no guarantee of food when their turn came to head the queue; old people died in those queues.
But the dire physical conditions of the people were surface manifestations of a deeper suffering, a deeper deprivation: the deprivation of freedom. To pass beyond the Iron Curtain was to feel as though one was entering a vast prison in which independent-spirited peoples were subject to political domination designed to constrain their basic political, intellectual and spiritual freedoms. With the Jagiellonian Trust, we tried to maintain spiritual, cultural and academic lifelines to parallel the medical lifeline of MAPF. Underground university meetings and the smuggling of samizdat material maintained contact with a people cut off from the rest of the world, excluded from contact with international media and deprived of access to literature, both classical and contemporary. Taking in the means for the publication of facts and ideas risked serious penalties—even blank paper could result in one's imprisonment. I was told that it was dangerous because it enabled people to write down their ideas. That was the name of the game of totalitarianism.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive those reminiscences. I believe that they are relevant. It is easy to forget the past very quickly, but an understanding of that past is helpful in appreciating the achievements and challenges of the present.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly emphasised the importance of private property rights. This concept presupposes a massive sea change in the economic and

367
political philosophy of countries engaged in the transformation from Communism to democratic pluralism; from centralised ownership of property and the means of production, to a respect for the right to own private property and to the development of a private sector economy. This in turn requires huge changes in values, attitudes, knowledge and policies.
The achievements of Poland and of the other countries of eastern and central Europe have been phenomenal given their background before they emerged into freedom and democracy. Driving through Poland today, one can hardly believe that it is the same country as 10 years ago. There are visible changes such as new buildings and shops—available to everyone—full of high-quality goods. There are modern garages with fuels where people no longer have to wait several hours in queues simply to fill the petrol tank. The list is endless, but behind those changes are deep changes in the political and economic infrastructure.
Those changes mean that Poland has gone a very long way towards fulfilling the criteria for EU membership, including progress in development of institutions guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law; a transition to a market economy; and an ability to survive under competitive forces and market competition within the EU.
However, the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, do merit serious consideration, as the restitution of unlawfully confiscated property is an important element in developing the principles and policies of the development of the private sector.
During the period of transition, help from sources such as those provided by the British Know-how Fund was invaluable. Other key contributions include many kinds of partnerships with academic, political and professional institutions in the West. If I may declare an interest as Chancellor of Bournemouth University, I cite one example: a partnership between our university's School of Finance and Law with the Warsaw University of Insurance and Banking.
The establishment of the economic infrastructure of a market economy, with the development of basic financial services such as insurance and reinsurance is crucial and has been greatly assisted by such partnerships. I must add that the benefits of those partnerships are not one way. In my experience, all who have been involved from this country emphasise that they receive as much as they give, in collaboration with highly qualified and very able colleagues responding to joint challenges on a basis of very different past experiences.
To draw to a conclusion, as I have said, I am not commenting in any detail on the specific aspect of the restitution of property which forms the second part of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question because that is a complex issue and I prefer to devote my limited time to the broader issues inherent in the first part of the noble Lord's Question. The economic and political development of the countries of eastern and central Europe, with their achievement of parliamentary
368
democracy and their progress towards a market economy, are of immense significance for the stability and peace of the whole of Europe.
Much has been achieved already and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who have made those achievements possible—primarily, of course, the people themselves, with the sacrifices they have made, their vision, their courageous commitment to the values of freedom and democracy and their strenuous endeavours to turn those values into viable policies.
I hope that the Government will be able to give an assurance that they will continue to provide the appropriate assistance and encouragement which have been so valuable to enable these peoples to develop the good work that has already been accomplished and to build a future which brings even greater benefits of democratic freedom, coupled with vibrant, robust economies, enabling them to play a full part in, and to make their distinctive contributions to, the family of European nations.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has done the House a service by raising this issue. I cannot speak to the facts of the particular case that he raised, but I believe that respect for private property rights is essential both to the European Union and to the Council of Europe. Freedom of movement of capital is one of the basic principles of the European Community Treaty, as is the right of establishment. Any action by member states, such as seizure of property without proper compensation, would inhibit the movement of capital into and out of the country concerned and would deny an effective right of establishment. Therefore, it would plainly be inconsistent with the treaty.
Member states of the Council of Europe are bound by the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights to respect property rights. Article 1 of the first protocol states:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall he deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law".
Article 1 of the protocol goes on to say:
"The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties".
Therefore, respect for private property rights is consistent with such matters as planning control, control over polluting discharges, control of housing standards and so on. It is also consistent with the right of the state to acquire property such as land or shares compulsorily if proper compensation is made and the acquisition is for a proper purpose. Rights of private property are therefore not absolute and unconditional.
The noble Lord has referred both to the European Union and the Council of Europe. There is a close linkage between the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights, although the latter is a

369
production of the Council of Europe. The European Union has not acceded to the convention; indeed, the European Court of Justice has held that it is not competent to do so. But Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of European Union (in its new numbering) states:
"The Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms … and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States as general principles of Community law".
All candidate member states from eastern Europe are members of the Council of Europe and have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights including the first protocol. I agree that for admission to the European Union a state must recognise property rights not only in theory but in practice. We are all too familiar with the constitutions of the Soviet Union and other communist states which propounded admirable principles but which were totally ignored in practice.
Her Majesty's Government and other member states of the European Union need to satisfy themselves fully that candidate states respect private property before they are admitted to the European Union. They must satisfy themselves that those states respect not only property rights but other rights contained in the convention, some of which are perhaps even more important than property rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, the right to a fair trial and the right to free elections.
The main point raised by the noble Lord is perhaps his second one, which is that candidate states should be encouraged to provide for the restitution of property confiscated from British nationals. That was the subject at issue in the specific case that he eloquently presented. Certainly, that is something to be encouraged. Our record in this country is by no means spotless. As two recent debates in the House have shown, it has taken us over 50 years to provide even very limited redress for the government's failure to return the assets of German Jews confiscated during the war on the ground that technically they were enemy aliens.
It is right that eastern European states should restore the property confiscated by communist governments to the people from whom it was confiscated. They should restore such property not only to British nationals, as the Question raises, but to citizens of other states and, above all, to their own nationals or—as in the case referred to by the noble Lord—their own former nationals who, after all, have been the main victims of the confiscation. Candidate states should be encouraged to return confiscated property to its former owners where practicable and to compensate where restoration is not practicable, as Council Resolution 1096 proposes. Clearly, it is a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether a candidate state is ready to be admitted to the European Union. My only qualification is that it should not in all cases be made a necessary condition of entry to the European Union.
Candidate states have suffered the trauma of communist rule for more than 40 years since the end of the war—in some cases it began during the war—until 1989 or, in the case of Estonia, 1991. It may not in all cases be economically or legally practicable to
370
reopen confiscations for which the present governments of those countries are not responsible and which occurred more than 50 years ago. Nevertheless, I very much support the proposition raised in this Question that, where it is practicable to do so, states should be strongly encouraged to ensure that restitution is made for the confiscation of property by the communist governments of the present candidate states.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this debate not only because it is an important issue worthy of your Lordships' consideration but also because I believe that by heightening this issue in the public domain our aims will be best achieved. We all know that it is wrong to remove private property from individuals. The principles of Conservatism ensure that every individual has a right to the property he has worked for or has had the good fortune to inherit. It is also right that we strive to protect the property rights of former residents of the central and eastern European countries whose property was confiscated in the past.
This can raise knotty and sensitive political and legal issues. The terms of each case vary greatly depending on which country and which nationalities one is considering. I fear that universally fair solutions are impossible and that therefore a case-by-case approach must be taken. Blanket condemnation of these countries does not appear to be constructive.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made particular reference to Slovenia. Slovenia had a problem with Italian residents on Slovenian territory. In 1945 they opted for Italian nationality. In 1965 the Treaty of Osimo between Italy and Yugoslavia provided for 150 million US dollars compensation to be paid through the Italian Government who had been the aggressor and had lost the war. Yugoslavia honoured the first two tranches of the payment. Later, Slovenia took over the obligation of the treaty. In the mid-1990s the Italian Government obstructed progress towards enlargement unless the Treaty of Osimo was revised to their advantage.
A compromise solution is now embodied in the Slovenian Europe Agreement to the effect that any national of the European Union who can prove to have been a Slovenian resident for more than three years may purchase property, the understanding being that Italian nationals who have received compensation may use those funds to buy back their properties. That appears to be a satisfactory solution in this particular case.
Does the Minister believe that the human rights clause of the Treaty of Amsterdam can be used satisfactorily to ensure that such issues are resolved prior to the accession of these countries? Do the Government believe that additional initiatives are necessary? If so, which?
I should like to focus on a further dimension to the Question tabled by the noble Lord. I understand private property rights to encompass the rights of those individuals and companies who invest in central and eastern Europe. I believe that foreign investors should

371
in particular have the right to own assets, repatriate profits and capital and have adequate protection in case of bankruptcy. Legislation regarding private property thus understood is a crucial element of the legal system in respect of the future potential of these countries.
Most central and eastern European countries will need to reform or to complete the reform of their legal systems in that respect for an adequate legal system is the most important element of the framework necessary to effect the transition to a market-oriented economy. Only a market economy will deliver the economic growth that those countries need so desperately. Those of us who have visited those countries regularly will have witnessed the misery, the deprivation and the suffering caused by the oppression of communism that followed so soon after the tragedy of the war, so eloquently described by my noble friend Lady Cox. The countries are now going through more pressures, with the ultimate aim of rejoining the European fold—the paramount foreign policy objective of applicants to the EU.
Creating a framework conducive to a market economy is a complex enterprise. It requires stable, reform-oriented governments capable of maintaining macro-economic stability. Where and when that has happened, progress has been fast. If that constellation of circumstances does not occur, the consequences may be dire. Like my noble friend Lady Cox, I shall concentrate on just one country. I hope that I shall do so as well as she did with regard to Poland.
I take the case of Bulgaria which has experienced both scenarios. Since November 1989, Bulgaria has progressed remarkably peacefully through the difficult transition from communism to a democracy and from a command to a market economy. Bulgaria has proven to be an island of stability in the Balkans, setting high standards of decency and dealing admirably with foreign policy and security challenges.
However, for a long time the internal political situation was fragile. The adoption in 1991 of a new constitution, and the election in October of that same year, marked a crucial retreat from communism. The new democratic government initiated a wide-ranging programme of structural reform but they laboured under the continuing opposition of the former communists. The government crisis of October 1992 allowed the communists to regain some terrain, and the lack of a cohesive majority slowed down their reforms.
The law on ownership restoration in 1992, compensation law in 1993, and bankruptcy law in 1994 were in fact enacted. Nevertheless, tax reform remained incomplete, and the legislation regarding foreign investment and ownership still needs to be made more attractive.
The return of the former communists to government from 1994 to 1997 spelt disaster for the country. It experienced a sharp economic contraction (-10.9 per cent. in 1996, and -7.4 per cent. in 1997) and rampant inflation of over 1,000 per cent. in 1997. That crisis was due mainly to a failure to push forward the restructuring of state industries and the privatisation programme, in
372
particular of the banking sector. That sector experienced a dramatic liquidity crisis, notably showing up the deficiency in the protection of creditors.
Out of that crisis emerged a new cross-party consensus, backed by the dynamic new president, Peter Stoyanov, elected in November 1996. After the spring 1997 election, a new democratic government came to power. The new and current government have a strong majority and are deeply committed to reform. Banking reform and privatisation—especially of large companies—were accelerated, with the clear will to involve foreign investors. In June, a new banking law was passed. In August, the first privatisation of a major state bank (the UBB) took place. In October, a new foreign investment law, lifting a number of persisting restrictions to foreign investment, reached the statute book.
The present government's commitment to reform has had an immediate impact on direct foreign investment. It jumped from 100 million dollars in 1996 to well over 500 million dollars in 1997. It is expected to grow equally dramatically this year. Bulgaria's economic prospects have also improved. This year growth is expected to be over 2.5 per cent. with inflation down 35 per cent.
Some areas of concern remain. In particular, according to the constitution, foreign persons or companies may not directly acquire land. Foreign investors can own land only if they set up or buy a stake in a Bulgarian-registered company. Other areas such as bankruptcy and company law would benefit from further refinements and clarification. Furthermore, the weakness of the administration and of the judicial system represents a real restriction of the rights of individual investors, which exist on paper. The government must create the climate of confidence which, in the first place, will attract Bulgarian expatriates to invest in the old country. They will, in turn, act as path openers to further foreign investment.
In speaking on Bulgaria I should have declared an interest as a governor of the American University, now sited in the old Communist Party headquarters outside Sofia. The last time I was there I met a student who had set up the university FM radio station when he was at the university. Today he runs the most successful FM station in Moscow, even though he is still only in his 20s. He told me with great pride that he is now able to pay for six students a year to go through his university. He was a remarkable boy. I tell that story as it is people like that who inspire and encourage investors back into a country.
I understand that those issues are to be addressed within the framework of Agenda 2000 and embodied in the accession partnerships. But can the Minister confirm that at the Luxembourg European Council the Prime Minister managed to win an agreement of which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said:
"There is no pre-determined order of accession. Individual countries can catch up or be caught up".—[Official Report, 15/12/97; col. 405.]
Does that mean that if they reach the required democratic and economic standards they can apply? If so, that will give countries such as Bulgaria tremendous

373
hope for the future. Will the Minister admit that the present EU approach to enlargement is insufficient to help Bulgaria and other like central and eastern European countries speedily towards accession? How will the British Government, particularly in their current role as president of the EU, encourage the countries to act?
As I said, I have addressed only the first part of this Question. I began by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this debate, and I shall finish in the same fashion. It is only by raising the public profile of the issue in a manner such as this that we can try to persuade the Government and the countries involved to take action.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for initiating this important debate, and other noble Lords who have participated. As noble Lords are aware, it is a basic principle of international law that a state ought not to expropriate the property of foreign nationals except for genuine public purposes, and with prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. The Government expect all countries to abide by those principles and, in particular, to respect the property rights of British nationals. That is particularly true, of course, of our fellow members of the EU and the 10 former Communist countries of central Europe which have embraced the free market and private property, and have sought membership of the EU.
The UK wishes all the applicant countries of central Europe to join the EU when they are ready. In order to join, each applicant country will have to be able to take on all the rights and obligations of EU membership, known as the "acquis". These include respect for fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms, set out in Articles F and 0 of the Treaty on European Union (as slightly amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam).
Before looking at the details raised in the debate, it might be useful to put the issue of private property rights in context. In part, I follow the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who put the matter eloquently. We must recognise that the recognition of private property rights is part of the creation of a sustainable pluralistic economy and a sustainable pluralistic society and democracy. The shift to recognition of private property rights is a massive sea change in the economic and political philosophy of those countries which have undergone 50 years of totalitarian Communism.
It is part of a sea change alongside enormous achievements, for example, of Poland and other countries in transforming their societies, their economies and their politics. It is less than a decade since the fall of the Berlin wall after half a century of totalitarianism. The fact that they have not all totally, explicitly and clearly in all respects implemented the principles which we take for granted in the West should be forgiven for some period. There are enormous difficulties in these applications.
374
Nevertheless, all 10 central European countries have ratified the European Convention, the First Protocol of which enshrines the principle of respect for private property. That is an achievement it itself. It means that British nationals no longer need fear unjust confiscation of their property in these countries.
However, desirable as these developments are, the provisions do not operate retrospectively. In particular, there is no guarantee of restitution for those whose property was seized during World War II or under the former Communist authorities in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe or Yugoslavia. In those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have not tolerated the unlawful confiscation of the property of British nationals.
There are a number of different instances where that might arise. In accordance with international law, Her Majesty's Government cannot normally take up a claim unless the claimant was a British national both at the time the claim arose and at the time HMG present the claim to the respondent state. Even then, the claimant must also have exhausted all available local legal remedies.
Where a large number of claims are outstanding, however, successive British governments have negotiated bilateral agreements to provide for compensation. Following the end of the Second World War, up until the downfall of Communism in Europe, the Government negotiated various compensation agreements with most of the former eastern bloc countries, including the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Those agreements provided for lump sum payments to be made to HMG to compensate British nationals who had lost property in the eastern bloc. That compensation was distributed to claimants by the Foreign Compensation Commission, an independent statutory body. All the compensation funds have now been exhausted and wound up.
One of the conditions of the agreements was that the UK waived its right to make any further claims against the countries concerned in respect of the claims settled by the agreements. The UK must continue to honour those agreements.
The position is slightly different if the British national concerned also held a second nationality at the time of confiscation, particularly if it was as a national of the respondent state. Where the claimant is a dual national, HMG may take up his or her claim, although in certain circumstances it may be appropriate for the Government to do so jointly with the other government concerned. We will not normally take up the claim of a UK national if the respondent state is the state of his or her second nationality. However, we may do so if the respondent state has, in the circumstances which gave rise to the injury, treated the claimant as a UK national. Dual nationals were covered by the bilateral agreements I have mentioned, provided that both nationalities were held at the time of expropriation.
The situation is more complex where the British national seeking compensation acquired citizenship only after expropriation occurred. Such British citizens were not covered by the bilateral agreements. Instead, they

375
must rely on local legal remedies. Thankfully, most of the states of central and eastern Europe have more recently passed laws which fully or partially provide for the restitution of property seized by the former communist authorities. Therefore, their own regimes apply. Briefly, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and, in part, Bulgaria have all passed some form of restitution law. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, pointed out, those laws are variable and the degree of implementation has been variable. Nevertheless, they are committed to those laws and they form part of our assessment as to their suitability for membership of the European Union.
Poland has yet to pass property restitution legislation. All legislative proposals have so far fallen. However, the recently elected government in Poland was committed to producing such legislation in its manifesto. It is also true that in Romania opposition efforts to provide the full restitution were defeated in favour of more limited forms of compensation.
The question raised in the debate is whether Her Majesty's Government should press those governments who have yet to enact legislation to compensate those whose property was seized prior to 1989 or to advocate individual cases which may already be before the courts of a particular central European state. The general point is that the European Union accession process will require them not only to have within their body of law, but also to implement, requirements for the recognition of property which will apply in most cases, though not necessarily all.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests that it is for the British Government to press the governments of central Europe to enact full restitution laws on the basis of the Council of Europe Resolution 1096. That resolution recommends:
"that property…which was illegally or unjustly seized by the state, nationalised, confiscated or otherwise expropriated during the reign of communist totalitarian systems in principle be restituted to its original owners in integrum…[or] in cases where this is not possible, just material compensation should be awarded. Claims and conflicts relating to individual cases of property restitution should be decided by the courts".
All the countries of central Europe are now members of the Council of Europe and are therefore committed to maintaining standards in the areas of human rights, pluralist democracy and the rule of law. However, that resolution is only a recommendation and is not in itself binding on Council of Europe member states. It is therefore best dealt with in the context of access to the European Union.
In helping British nationals to pursue claims against the governments of central Europe, Her Majesty's Government must balance a number of competing objectives. The confiscation of property obviously causes great hardship to the individuals concerned, but there is a financial burden on the countries of central Europe, all of which have undergone difficult, vital and costly economic and social transitions. The British Government believe that the full economic and social
376
transition of central Europe, ultimately culminating in membership of the European Union is vital for the development of all Europe.
Where there are outstanding claims against the governments of central Europe by British nationals, we have ensured that the relevant authorities are aware of the public concern. The British Government may provide consular assistance on a case by case basis.
As a basic principle, the Government have offered support to those countries in developing their administrative and legal procedures in dealing with these issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, knows, the Government's Know-how Fund, which was set up to support those countries, has consistently offered to the governments of central Europe support on their legal systems, including in particular contractual and property rights.
I turn specifically to Slovenia. It is complicated partly because it has experienced a serious property crisis with the Italians which has threatened to result in a major diplomatic issue. Thankfully, it has been resolved. Also, in a sense, Slovenia was only part of the state which confiscated property. Similar problems arise with the Baltic States in that regard.
When Slovenia became independent in 1991, its parliament decided to give back to the former owners property and enterprises confiscated by the Communist regime from 1947. There are three methods of reclaiming property: normal court proceedings, summary proceedings if the claimant has documentary evidence of former ownership, and denationalisation proceedings by application to local authorities.
In a population of 2 million, Slovenia has had 40,000 claims. That is an immense legal and administrative burden. It is being dealt with by the courts or the local authorities where the property or enterprises are situated. It will be appreciated that processing those claims involves extensive checking of records and archives to trace and confirm rightful ownership. That takes a considerable amount of time. The sheer volume of claims is therefore limiting the degree to which they are processed. However, there is also a political and legal argument within Slovenia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred.
As background to that, I need to depart somewhat from the position of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. In our view, Slovenia is a functioning democracy. It is true that in a functioning democracy, elements sometimes come to power of which we may not particularly approve. Nevertheless, basic parliamentary political democracy exists there. In Slovenia, the law was introduced in 1991 and it has denationalised and returned a vast amount of property and land within that country.
In December 1995, the national assembly passed a law in relation to the partial and temporary suspension of restitution of property which put a three-year moratorium on the return of land. That change reflected the concern that a large amount of the acreage of Slovenia was being returned to foreign owners and in particular to owners associated with the previous royal family of Yugoslavia and with the family of Thurn and Taxis who owned substantial land within Slovenia.

377
In the case of the ex-royal family, the constitutional court ruled the claim invalid as it was originally confiscated in relation to the abolition of the monarchy and was therefore excluded.
In January last year, the constitutional court ruled that that temporary moratorium was illegal and that it should he rescinded as from July 1997 and that in the intervening period parliament should adopt new amendments to the 1991 law and also, possibly, put them to a referendum. Neither the amendments nor the referendum has yet taken place and there is a considerable political debate within Slovenia as to what is going on.
Our concern is that that issue is nevertheless being processed through the Slovenian courts. Those claims are being processed, including the claim mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. There are obviously other political undercurrents which are affecting the debate in Slovenia. Morality on those issues may not be quite as clear cut as it may seem. After all, I suspect that it is unlikely that the means by which the Count of Thurn and Taxis obtained the Slovenian lands over the centuries of the Austro-Hungarian empire did not entirely conform to the European Convention on Human
378
Rights. Nevertheless, those matters must be tackled. The politics and internal affairs of Slovenia must have their own processes to try to change that law.
I cannot comment in vast detail on individual cases. The Foreign Office is well aware of that case. The noble Lord should be aware that compensation in relation to some of the claims has been settled and others are ongoing within the courts. Therefore, that case has not been severely affected by the latest moratorium.
Clearly, the Government and the European Union as a whole would wish to see the situation resolved within Slovenia. But in general, we consider that the Slovenes are capable of that resolution. Their democracy and, admittedly, relatively new free court system will be able to deal with those issues. It may take time, but any country faced with 40,000 such claims, which raise in many cases emotive and difficult legal and social issues, needs to be given time to settle them all.
We still believe that Slovenia is a functioning democracy and ought to be a member of the European Union. But at the end of the day—if I may give this comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Harris—unless respect for property rights is clearly established, neither Slovenia nor any other applicant state will be regarded as suitable for full membership of the European Union.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.