Lords Sitting of 20 January 1986

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 Derby.

Airport Duty-Free Shops: Competition
Lord Gainford: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether competition for duty-free shops in airports will be increased to minimise prices and maximise efficiency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the scope for increasing competition is limited by the restricted space which is available in airport terminals. The airport authorities seek to achieve the benefits of competition by inviting at regular intervals competitive tenders for the concessions for operating the duty-free shops.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Can he tell me whether Her Majesty's Government willl encourage this work, particularly in view of the very good contribution that these shops make toward the export drive?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords, I would confirm to my noble friend that we wish to encourage the work and in fact expand it. As my noble friend probably knows, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reported on the 10th December last year and we are looking at this report to see whether we can improve the competitive position.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us what will be the position with regard to competitive tendering when the airports are privatised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the airports will be subject to the normal competition rules.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware of how uncompetitive our airports shops are in comparison with those in most other countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe it varies from airport to airport, but some of our airport shops are very competitive.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the Minister aware that to those acquainted with retailing the gross profits of these shops appears scandalous and in no way competitive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think they are very competitive with the duty-free goods which can be offered on the airlines themselves.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Earl given consideration to whether the use of the term "duty free" is thoroughly justified?
The Earl of Caithness: Better people than I, my Lords, have given consideration to that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government have any plans to follow the excellent example which has been set by Singapore and one or two other countries, and allow duty-free goods to be sold to incoming passengers as well as to outbound ones? Would this not enormously enhance airline safety as well as saving millions of gallons of aviation fuel every year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know whether that comes within the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but as we are undertaking a study of it, I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since the noble Earl has already replied that consideration has been given by Ministers better qualified than he is to whether the term "duty free" is a correct one, will he

3
now tell the House what is the result of their thoughts upon the subject? Is it or is it not a justifiable title in the mind of Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as I am aware, it is justified in everybody's mind.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the eyes of many travellers these shops are in fact making much too high profits and putting up charges much too high and that competition is not as it should be? Should not the whole matter of competition be taken much further?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can see the logic behind the argument of the noble Viscount but the profits from these shops go towards reducing the cost of airport charges for other passengers as well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has still not given an answer to the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Either the Government are collecting tax on these goods or they are not. Which is it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think I shall write to the noble Baroness on that matter.

Local Authorities: Funds
2.40 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what total sum of money they now hold which belongs to local authorities and which has been accumulated from the sale of capital assets.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): None, my Lords. These funds are held by the local authorities themselves.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I accept the Answer of the noble Lord the Minister as factual—that these funds are held by the local authorities themselves—but is it not true that the Government have severely restricted access to those funds by halving the amount accessible from 40 per cent. to 20 per cent. some time ago? Can he now give us the amount of this money that is being held in reserve by the local authorities? Bearing in mind that the Government's own report on housing shows a need for £19 billion expenditure in order to deal with some of the problems which confront local authorities and other housing authorities these days, will the Minister consider pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to release those sums at absorbable amounts so that the local authorities can grapple with the situation that now confronts them?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I have grasped the main theme of the noble Lord's various questions. The fact is that the sums held by local authorities are very large indeed and we are now consulting with them as to how best to get an accurate picture of their size.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, surely the Minister must know the figure, bearing in mind that the last time it was quoted it was £6 billion plus? During the last Financial Statement there were reports from very reliable quarters that those sums had increased quite considerably in excess of £6 billion—so much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering reducing the 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. So will the Minister tell us how much money is involved and stop hiding behind some rather vague answers to some very pointed questions?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am hiding behind nothing except possibly a misconception in the mind of the noble Lord. We are not talking about money as such but about spending power, which is what I tried to make clear in my original Answer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: They are the same, my Lords.
Lord Elton: No, my Lords; money and spending power are not the same. Spending power is what one gets by borrowing money and by having permission to spend; money is cash. To take an example which is fresh in the noble Lord's mind, if a local authority sells a council house it may get cash or it may get a mortgage undertaking, and the two are very different. The spending amounts in question are roughly of the order of £6 billion in England, but I thought that he would want something more accurate, and I shall not be in a position to give him that until we have had the survey to which I have referred.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, when the Government are discussing the matter with the local authorities will they bear very much in mind a point that has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean; that is, the urgent need for more housing? As some of the funds arose from the sale of housing, will they do all they can to see that the maximum amount is put back into new housing?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are very much aware of the housing needs of this country and we will bear the noble Lord's remarks in mind.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that in a period of high unemployment mobility of labour is exceptionally important; that that can best be fostered by rented property; and that the local authorities are best able to provide that as long as they are given the necessary finance?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not wish to widen the terms of the debate other than to say that we recognise the need for mobility of labour in this country; and the noble Lord will recognise the fact that there are a large number of properties vacant at present.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is restrictions on renting that are causing a great shortage of accommodation in many parts of the country and impeding the mobility of labour?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his comment, but I think that it goes a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain the statement that he made a moment ago about actual cash and borrowing? He gave the example of a council tenant being allowed to purchase his house. Let us assume that he goes to a building society, as the overwhelming majority have to do, to raise a mortgage. Is nothing at all sent to the local authority?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords. In my perhaps rather telescoped example I was thinking of the local authority itself providing a mortgage.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Government are breaking faith? When they cajoled local authorities to sell houses it was implicit in the discussions and in the debates in this House that selling the houses would release the capital for them to build other houses that were urgently needed. The Government are breaking faith if they do not now let them use the money for that purpose.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is a fact that not all the money can be used in the first year, but only the prescribed amount. But the prescribed amount is available again for the remaining amount in the subsequent years.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I regret that in answering my questions the Minister has appeared to be more evasive than is his usual standard when he comes to the Dispatch Box. If he is not prepared to give the answer now, I may be able to appraise him of the figures during the debate that is due to take place in a short time on the report of the Duke of Edinburgh's commission on housing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is my duty to answer the questions, but I cannot see what the noble Lord's question was.

Holloway Prison: C1 Unit
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what urgent measures they are taking to close down the C1 Unit of Holloway Prison in the light of the recent suicide, after release of the girl mentioned in Lady Ewart-Biggs' speech on 29th October 1985 (H.L. Deb. col. 1529) and the further suicide of a 44 year-old inmate of the unit on 16th December 1985.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we see no grounds for reviewing the arrangements under which mentally disturbed inmates at Holloway Prison are located on C1 Unit, which is part of the prison hospital. We have agreed that C1 should be resited in
6
purpose-built accommodation. As an interim measure, a programme of detailed improvements to its fabric, management structure and regime has been started.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but does he not agree that the two tragedies highlight the inadequacies of the C1 Unit? Will he say, first, whether a date has been set and funds allocated for the replacement unit which he mentioned; and, secondly, whether he agrees that every report on the unit has recommended its closure? Will he agree to meet a delegation made up of all those involved in the unit to see whether an arrangement can be made to hasten the end of that shameful institution?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I straightaway say that I share the concerns that many express about the unit, but it is important to get the changes to the present unit right and to get the new unit right as well. The noble Baroness asked for an estimate on cost and on timing for the new unit. I am afraid that I cannot yet give her that information. But, as I said, the improvements to the present unit are going ahead and I have every confidence that they will come forward in the not too distant future, but it is important to get them right.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the latter part of my supplementary question? Will he receive a delegation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall be delighted to consider the invitation to accept a delegation if somebody contacts me to let me know precisely what it wants to talk about.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when he answered the noble Baroness on 23rd July I intervened to say that I thought the matter ought to be dealt with very much more urgently than he was suggesting, and he said that what mattered was to get it right at the end of the day? I replied with lightning repartee, "So long as we do not have to wait till the end of the day". We are not only having to wait till the end of the day: there is no day named. I am speaking very seriously. It is terrible that this situation should continue, and that there should have been two further suicides since the noble Lord said that he was then (which was already far too late) putting in hand an examination of what should be done. I know that he is as embarrassed about this as I am, but I assure him that what he has said is in no way satisfactory.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have made clear on earlier occasions, it has been necessary to assess the condition of the fabric in some detail before planning the changes that can be made. The detail has necessarily to be gone into if real improvements are to be achieved. I desire the same aims as the noble Lord, but we shall not get anywhere by rushing. I can tell him, however, that the matter is being gone into extremely thoroughly and the results will be worth having at the end of the day.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread recognition of the fact

7
that the situation in Holloway is a total mess, as acknowledged by the Government in July, and that it appears that nothing whatever has been done in the meantime, whatever may have been planned?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, one does not build new units to replace old units in prisons overnight. We have agreed to undertake the planning of the new unit. Progress towards that is being made in conjunction with the DHSS, taking up the recommendations made in the Holloway project report. In the meantime, we are taking steps to put right, where we can, the shortcomings of the present unit.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the problems of the C1 Unit is by no means only a matter of bricks and mortar, and that it is putting an intolerable burden on prison staff who are not, and cannot be expected to be, trained at present to cope with the kind of problems they meet there? Does he agree that any changes that are made should include changes in the nature of the staffing as well as in the nature of the building?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have already taken steps to improve the management of the unit. Interviews for the selection of a suitable doctor in the post of senior medical officer with responsibility for C1 have taken place. The senior medical officer will have a key role to play in the creation of the right management framework and also in the provision of an appropriate regime.
As to training of staff, we would expect in the long term to staff C1 with fully trained hospital officers with nursing qualifications. In the short term, it has been decided to supplement the present C1 staff training with a special course for a multi-disciplinary C1 team. Arrangements have been made for the course to take place in March. So that, I think, is progress.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister forgive me if I press him on a matter regarded by many of us as extremely urgent? Does he realise that my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs waited patiently for three months before asking another Question and that his Answer is precisely the same as the one he gave three months ago? How long does he feel that it takes for fabric to be examined and a plan to be prepared? What is the target date? What is the nature of the improvements planned meanwhile for the present building?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, first there had to be a discussion on precisely what was required and how it should be done. Then there was a finalised brief dealing with the preparation of a technical design for the builders and so on. Now we proceed to detailed working drawings, and eventually the matter has to go out to tender. It is easy to suppose that adjustments to a building like this can be undertaken without much planning. I can assure the noble Lord that the greatest possible care is being taken to make sure that we get these things right. The next step is to prepare the detailed working drawings as a basis for inviting tenders for the necessary work.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I return to the Dispatch Box with an apology. What is the target date that the Government have for this project? And what is the nature of the improvements planned meanwhile to the present building?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no target date as such because we are trying to do the job as speedily as we possible can. I go back to what I said earlier. It is important to get this right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that the prison staff at Holloway are doing their tasks exceedingly well in very difficult circumstances? Despite what the Minister has said concerning the improvements that are in hand, is it not a fact that ultimately the best solution is the fulfilment of the promise made some time ago for the creation of secure regional units in DHSS establishments?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly agree that the staff at Holloway do an extremely good job. I agree that the situation there is difficult. As to regional secure units, that programme is growing quite fast. I believe that 10 of the 14 regions now have these regional secure units. I have no more up-to-date information than that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister—I return to this briefly—please indicate the nature of the improvements planned to the building at the moment? I have now asked that question three times.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are a number of things to be improved, such as the removal of the light fittings and having them recessed into the roof, and the replacement of certain facilities—basins and lavatories—and making them less destructible. There is work to be done connected with what one actually sees through the door of a cell so that prisoners can be properly observed, and various other things as well. The hope is that, at the end of the day, these cells can be taken out of commission, two at a time, so that work can be done on them. But it is important that proper structural considerations are taken into account.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of these changes have already been carried out? Will he also say whether he has considered two improvements suggested by the Prison Officers' Association, one of them the removal of the whole unit to an interim place in the adapted accommodation in Block A? Can he say, too, whether resources have been provided to enable prisoners to participate in recreational activities during the interim period before the replacement unit has been built?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the interim unit suggested by the Prison Officers' Association is not a practical alternative. Many of the problems that exist in the C1 Unit would be found in the unit that the noble Baroness is, I believe, thinking of. As to improvements carried out so far, the work has been done on, certainly, one, if not more than one, cell, with a view to improving visibility. It does not need to be assessed; it is not a question of simply jumping at it.

9
On the question of resources for recreational activities, I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer immediately, but I shall certainly let her know.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the reason why this is moving at such a deplorably slow pace has nothing to do with the denial of the necessary funds to enable it to go faster?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. It has nothing to do with funds at all. It has merely to do with the care and essential features of the work to be done in order to make sure, for example, that in taking down a wall to improve facilities, we are not doing structural damage to the prison.

Multi-Fibre Arrangement
2.58 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they now favour renewal of a strong multi-fibre arrangement in July 1986 in the light of President Reagan's recent commitment to such an aim for the USA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, we shall work for the renewal of an effective multi-fibre arrangement which takes account of the need of the United Kingdom textile industry and of the British economy as a whole.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware of the actual terms used by President Reagan on 17th December; namely, to,
"most aggressively renegotiate the multi-fibre arrangement on terms no less favourable than at present"?
Is he further aware—
Noble Lords: Reading!
A Noble Lord: He is allowed to read quotations!
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, is my noble friend also aware that the United States still imposes a 40 per cent. tariff on woollen exports from this country to the United States? Is he further aware—
Lord Denham: No—too long!
Viscount Trenchard:—that the newly-industrialised countries continue to protect strongly or totally their own markets? Will he accept the need for a fair trading opportunity—
Lord Denham: No!
Viscount Trenchard:—internationally for our half-million-strong textile industry?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, encapsulating my noble friend's questions—which I am sure derive
10
from his knowledge of and interest in that industry as a Minister of State in the Department of Industry—a major aim of the United Kingdom for the new General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs round is to achieve a better balance of rights and obligations for all countries involved. In so far as a new multi-fibre arrangement is concerned, it would be our intention, while liberalising those arrangements, to ensure that our own textile industry—which has done so very well in recent years—is not unduly disadvantaged.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any relaxation in our negotiations on the third multi-fibre arrangement will be reflected in the number of unemployed which ensues, and that we cannot afford to lose any more of our textile trade?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we do not believe that in making a new multi-fibre arrangement the textile industry of this country will be disadvantaged. The intention in coming to a new arrangement is to ensure that there is sufficient time for that industry to meet the increasing competition that there is across the world.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, is there not a certain amount of evidence to suggest that the multi-fibre agreement is for the consumer an extremely expensive way of preserving the jobs which it is supposed to preserve? Has my noble friend studied this evidence?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is not an agreement but an arrangement. The arrangement is unduly expensive towards the consumer. As I said earlier, a new arrangement will seek to ensure that the trade is liberalised so that the consumer will be advantaged, but not to the gross disadvantage of the industry, which has been singularly successful in recent years.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, could the Minister explain to us how, in the process of renegotiating the multi-fibre agreement, they intend to safeguard the position of the developing countries, which are also a very good market for us in the future?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I explained earlier, we are anticipating, through the new GATT round, a better arrangement of responsibilities and obligations. It will be under that umbrella of increased and improved responsibilities and obligations that a new multi-fibre arrangement can be negotiated.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how the Government propose in the course of these negotiations to deal with the situation arising from the subsidised importation from Taiwan and Hong Kong of goods that are very heavily subsidised by their respective Governments? How does the noble Lord propose to deal with that? Does he propose to leave the English textile industry at the mercy of these quite heavily subsidised imports into the United Kingdom?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think I answered that question when I said that the new

11
GATT round, under whose umbrella the multi-fibre arrangements are negotiated, will be designed, and it will be our objective, to ensure that there is a better balance of rights and obligations. Those are the rights and the obligations to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any textiles diverted from America will find a home in Europe? That means that we shall be very vulnerable if that takes place.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do indeed recognise the vulnerability of the industry. However, let me remind your Lordships that in the first nine months of 1985 the textile and clothing industry exports to the United States were over 34 per cent. higher than in the same period the previous year. That is indeed a successful counter to the implied criticism which the noble Lord makes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are we to understand in this latest instance of Government intervention in the markets that a European solution is to be favoured over an American solution?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord (it is Lord Williams, in case the noble Lord thought that I had failed to remember his name) will recall that our interests in these matters are conducted with us by our Community partners. Our Community policies will be determined in Europe by ourselves, and not by Washington.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand from his noble friend who asked this Question that the word "strong" in that Question meant a strong multi-fibre arrangement on behalf of our textile industry? Indeed, that was implied, was it not, in the supplementary question by the noble Viscount? But would the noble Lord appreciate that there is another partner in this matter, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear; that is, the developing countries, who also need strong support? Will the noble Lord recognise that as to the use of the word "effective" in his original Answer and of the word "balance" in subsequent answers, these are words which are welcome to those of us who are concerned with the welfare of the developing countries?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and I think I am in broad agreement with him.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, in view of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would the Minister confirm that there is no question of subsidisation of Hong Kong exports and that, indeed, since that market is entirely free for British and other exports, it should be treated quite differently from protected markets?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I think your Lordships will know, the Hong Kong market is the most liberal of all markets and one must ensure that that remains so. It may be necessary, of course, to ensure that we make our markets as liberal as we can to those who respond with us in matters of this nature.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which has been made in another place on the Channel fixed link.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order 1985
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order 1985, which was laid before your Lordships on 14th November last year, be approved. I shall then move formally the approval of the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1985.
The need for temporary powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 must be seen against the current, and indeed the foreseen, security situation of Northern Ireland. I hope that at the end of my remarks your Lordships will agreee that there still is a real need for such powers.
Your Lordships will know that this year of 1986 was not one minute old before the Provisional IRA coldly and callously killed two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. And only last week a young man—a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment—was killed by a booby trap device on his car as he was driving away from his parents' home. These two incidents are a grim reminder that, despite the pressure exerted by the security forces, the terrorist retains the ability to attack, to kill and to maim.
I have figures for deaths as a result of the security situation during 1985. They show some improvement on previous years although they will give cold comfort to the families, the friends and the loved ones of those killed. In Northern Ireland 54 people lost their lives as a result of the security situation in 1985. That was 10 fewer than in 1984. But the Royal Ulster Constabulary lost 23 members killed, equalling the highest annual total since the present troubles began.
Despite those deaths, the Royal Ulster Constabulary shows a courage and, I am sure your Lordships will agree, a dedication to the fair enforcement of the law which earns my sincere respect and gratitude, that of the Government and, I am sure, that of the whole of your Lordships' House. At this stage we must not forget the contribution which is equally made by the Army, including the Ulster Defence Regiment and the prison service. Other figures for 1985 show that the decrease in the number of deaths was matched by a more signficant reduction in the number of terrorist incidents. These were down by 18 per cent.
However, those mere statistics, which are an encouraging sign, give us no room at all for complacency. One death is one too many and, as my

13
right honourable friend said in another place last week, terrorism at any level is quite unacceptable; and the security forces—with the full support of Her Majesty's Government—will continue to spare no effort in freeing all sections of the community from its malign effects.
We cannot let this debate pass without mentioning the security benefits which we expect to flow from the agreement. Both Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland are united in their determination to root out the terrorists and to bring them before the courts to face charges in respect of crimes which they are alleged to have committed. But security benefits can only be forthcoming if the opportunity presented by the agreement to make progress is grasped wholeheartedly by all those in Northern Ireland who are genuinely committed to the cause of peace and constitutional policies. In those circumstances, I believe that we may have some hope of achievement. We look to the representatives of constitutional nationalists in Northern Ireland to give their wholehearted support for the security forces.
In Northern Ireland it is easy to criticise the authorities, but those same critics must not hold back from recognising publicly the vital and difficult role performed by the security forces and from endorsing the even-handed enforcement of the law. Unequivocal support from the minority community would advance the goal of eradicating the terrorism from which all in Northern Ireland have suffered so savagely. However, without it, the full benefits which the agreement can bring will be much less likely to materialise. We, for our part, will continue to look to the interests of the whole community. Through the conference we hope to derive a sharper appreciation of the issues and the incidents in the security field which can harm relations between the minority community and the security forces. We shall also be using the conference to explain our position on certain security issues with a view to removing misunderstandings which may have in the past impeded the development of widespread cross-community support for the security forces in Northern Ireland.
The growth of such support, which the agreement is designed to foster, is of course as much in the interests of the Unionist community as of those of the minority. It provides the best hope of eradicating terrorism. Everyone in Northern Ireland will also benefit from enhanced security co-operation, and we have jointly put work in hand to that end. However, we really must not expect an overnight miracle. Benefits in the security field will take time to become evident and we are in no doubt that those who have the most to lose from increased security co-operation will seek to destabilise the community.
We shall be looking for every opportunity to increase the co-ordination of security activity on both sides of the border so as to reduce significantly the threat from cross-border terrorism. The meetings that have already taken place between the chief constable and the commissioner of the Garda Siochana and their respective senior officers are the first steps towards that aim. The conference will also be considering legal matters, among them being ways of simplifying the procedures for handling extradition requests and the mounting extra-territorial prosecutions.
Perhaps at this stage I may inform your Lordships that, while we are working more closely with the Irish Government on security matters, there is no change in the responsibilities of the chief constable or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The chief constable's operational independence in the discharge of his responsibilities is completely unaltered. If I may digress, I should like to say a few words about the very difficult job which the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has to perform. Whatever he and his men do, they are often likely, in the view of one side of the community or the other, to be open to criticism. I believe that it is a true indication of his impartiality, and, indeed, that of the whole of his force, that this criticism has come at one time or another from both sides of the community.
Returning to the responsibilities of the Government and my right honourable friend, I should make it clear that all executive decisions about security issues in Northern Ireland will continue to be taken by Her Majesty's Government and mostly by my right honourable friend. We will consider the views put forward by the Government of the Republic alongside the views of parties both here and in another place, of the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament in another place, and, indeed Members of your Lordships' House who contribute so much from Northern Ireland. Let us also not forget the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, let me make it quite clear that we shall take the decisions—as we have always done—in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland and of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Let me briefly turn to the orders before us this afternoon. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is temporary, and it is exceptional legislation. We have no desire for it to continue on the statute book a day longer than is necessary. However, as your Lordships will be aware, it provides for departures in certain circumstances from the normal procedures of British justice. However, it is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to come before your Lordships to say that the Act is no longer necessary and that it can now be allowed to lapse. But, sadly, that is not the case. We need the Act to enable us to pursue the fight against terrorism.
The first conclusion which the late Sir George Baker reached when he reviewed the Act was that there was only limited scope for amending it. I have to say that we agree with the late Sir George in that particular respect.
So far as amending the emergency provisions Act is concerned, we intend to amend the Act and we shall certainly do so when the parliamentary timetable permits. I outlined to your Lordships the broad thrust of our proposals for amending the Act when we were debating the matter in July last year. Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships that we propose, when amending the Act, to recommend that it has a maximum life of five years. That will provide for major and detailed parliamentary scrutiny of it at reasonable periods.
We are also amending Schedule 4 to the Act. We have an opportunity today to amend Schedule 4 on roughly the lines which were proposed by Sir George Baker, as that can be achieved by order under Section 30 of the Act. The amendment order which we have before us today will widen the discretion of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General to certify in respect of particular cases that offences should not be treated as "scheduled" offences. This extends the range of offences which could potentially be tried before a jury, and it is intended to make it possible for more cases to be tried by jury in Northern Ireland. However, the Government share Sir George Baker's view that, unfortunately, the time has not yet arrived at which jury trials could be restored for all cases involving terrorist-type crimes in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, this amending order marks a small step in what I am sure your Lordships will feel is the right direction, and it goes as far as we can. I hope, therefore, that everyone—both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere—will recognise in this measure, limited though it must be, our readiness to match our actions to our understanding of the importance of building and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.
In essence, the order meets virtually the whole of Sir George Baker's Recommendations 12, 13 and 15, which were that kidnapping, false imprisonment, offences under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and all scheduled offences which are triable summarily or carry a maximum sentence of less than five years should be capable of being, as we call it, "certified out". The exceptions are those offences under the firearms order and those scheduled offences which carry a low maximum penalty which are in practice only likely to be committed by persons associated with terrorists. I think your Lordships would agree that it would be pointless to give the Attorney-General a discretion to "certify out" such offences when he would probably never be able to exercise it.
The amending order does not extend the Attorney-General's discretion to cover robbery or aggravated burglary, as Sir George Baker had recommended. This does not mean that all cases involving robbery or burglary will be tried in a Diplock court as, under note 4 to Schedule 4, such offences are only scheduled offences:
"where it is charged that an explosive, firearm, imitation firearm or weapon of offence was used to commit the offence".
In circumstances where such weapons are used, I think your Lordships will agree that it is usually very difficult to tell whether the alleged offence was committed for "domestic" or "terrorist" motives. If such offences were capable of being certified out, the Attorney-General's decisions in particular cases might be perceived as an indication that one accused person had terrorist links, which another did not. I am sure that your Lordships will be sharp enough to understand that that could prejudice the outcome of certain trials and make my right honourable and learned friend's decisions a matter of public debate. Where the decisions cannot be clear-cut it is better not to confer a discretion and to leave the mode of trial to be determined on objective criteria by reference to the nature of the offence.
For completeness I should record that the Government do not intend to accept Sir George Baker's Recommendations Nos. 16 and 17. He had recommended that the power to "certify out" offences in particular cases should be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. However my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General believes it would be right to reserve this important power to himself. He can then continue to be directly answerable to Parliament on the way in which it is exercised.
The Government also take the view that, if any trial before a jury is believed to have been prejudiced by intimidation, the correct course is to abandon it and order a retrial. For the judge to dismiss the jury and continue the trial alone would easily lead to the accusation that the judge had exercised the power in order to set his views on issues of fact above those of the jury. This would bring the judicial system itself into disrepute.
I hope that I have not unduly wearied your Lordships. We have before us this afternoon one order which continues the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and another order which amends it. The continuance order contains the provisions which we believe are necessary to continue the fight against terrorism, and to this particular combat the Government remain totally committed. The amendment order reflects our commitment to amend the Act, wherever and whenever we can, to restore the normal procedures of British justice. However, we shall not do this at the cost of risking the lives and the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move the first order standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell).
3.24 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again the time has come to renew the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I fear that its renewal has become almost a ritual, notwithstanding many demands from different quarters for its reform. But at least the renewal order gives us an opportunity to express our genuine sympathy with the families, Protestant and Catholic, who have grievously suffered at the hands of the men of violence. Although in Northern Ireland the violence has raged over the past 15 years, we are not left unmoved by the gatherings in the small churchyards of the Province which we witness almost weekly on our television screens.
The debate also gives us an opportunity to express our gratitude to the security forces and to the RUC, subjected as they have been to immense pressures for years, and who have borne the brunt of the violence. Therefore, we pay tribute to their courage, and in particular to the courage of their families.
There is a difference between this renewal debate and previous debates. The difference is that this debate follows the major political initiative embarked upon by the Government and aimed at tackling the root problems in the Province, so that hopefully the people of Northern Ireland may move towards stability, normality and peace—a peace which the 13 years of

17
emergency provisions have failed to deliver. There is another difference, because we have before us not only the order for the continuance of the 1978 Act but also an order to amend in a very limited way—we would say that it is far too limited—the 1978 Act. The Hillsborough accord was a positive initiative offering a chance of progress; but we believe that if that initiative is to succeed, it must be linked to a number of other measures, one of those measures being a major reform of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.
Therefore, it is a disappointment that, almost two years after the late Sir George Baker presented his report on his review of the Act and the actions which he thought were needed, the Government have not as yet produced a reasonable plan and timetable of progress towards reforming the emergency provisions. We do not expect an overnight miracle, but we are entitled to expect a reasonable plan and a reasonable timetable of progress.
Northern Ireland is a relatively small province; its population is relatively small. In a sense, it is a community of communities, and a wrong to the individual is quickly perceived as a wrong against his community. Since 1973 its people and its communities have had to live with a criminal law system which in many important respects is substantially different from and less civilised than their entitlement under their common law inheritance. A radical departure from traditional standards, from traditional procedures, in the administration of justice, and a lowering of standards over a period of time in the field of the administration of justice, can be very damaging to the standing of the courts, to the community which the courts serve; and indeed it could also be damaging to the younger practitioners of the law, working as they do in a relatively small jurisdication. Of course, it can also be damaging to the individual citizen.
The basic common law criminal procedure is clear: it is arrest on reasonable grounds on evidence obtained through prior investigation. So we have the arrest, followed by a charge, followed by trial by judge and jury. That is the process which has served our forefathers well for centuries. However, in 1973 Parliament intervened to authorise in certain circumstances in Northern Ireland a radical departure from that process. It authorised arrest without reasonable grounds, to be followed by interrogation and a deferment of a charge until a confession, to be followed by trial by judge alone. For how much longer are the traditional criminal law procedures and standards that we cherish on the mainland to remain suspended in Northern Ireland?
Those who argue for continued suspension of this main procedure have, I would accept, a case which needs careful consideration. Nevertheless, is it not possible, subject to certain safeguards which it should not be beyond the wit of man to design, to begin to restore jury trials, which are after all the shield of the innocent? We are familiar with the arguments that are relied upon to resist the reform. It is said that members of the jury will be exposed to intimidation; that they will deliver perverse verdicts, or perverse acquittals.
Those were the arguments used in 1973 when the predecessor Act was introduced. But a close reading of
18
the 1973 debates shows that those two main arguments for suspending jury trial were not supported in 1973 by conclusive statistical information. Let it be remembered—and some noble Lords will confirm this, because they were in the other place at the time—that the committee were 12 for and 12 against the suspension of jury trial. It was as close as that. The decision to suspend jury trial was taken on a casting vote of the committee chairman, who claimed that he had to follow precedent. But it may well be that jury trial offered an even older precedent. Jury trial was designed by our forefathers as a safeguard for the innocent, and we consider that its restoration in Northern Ireland, with safeguards, and possibly also on a trial basis, should be a high priority.
The non-jury trial in Northern Ireland usually works in conjunction with the evidence, usually uncorroborated, of a supergrass. Your Lordships will recall an earlier debate in the House where grave disquiet was expressed about the supergrass system. He is invariably a witness of bad character who has been involved in terrorist offences; he has turned Queen's evidence in return for immunity, or the prospect of favourable treatment and the offer of a new life. A barrister, practising on the Northern Ireland circuit, wrote recently in one of the professional journals that even if he were offered such a witness for the defence he would never call him.
Your Lordships will recall that 26 men out of 27 were recently convicted on the word of the supergrass, Harry Kirkpatrick. Is that not a subject of concern? I cannot comment on an appeal that is being heard today, but there is an appeal being heard today in Belfast of 30 people who were convicted on the evidence of supergrass Christopher Black, and whose trial commenced almost three years ago. Their appeal is being heard today. We submit that if we are to move towards the building up of confidence in the law courts, in the administration of justice, the supergrass trials must be brought to an end.
Of course many other reforms are urgently required. Will the Minister tell the House what consideration is being given to the bringing of conditions of bail into line with the Bail Act? Will the Minister assure the House that someone in Northern Ireland has by now been vested with authority to cut down the lengthy delays between arrest and trial and between conviction and appeal? I have just referred to the three-year delay between conviction and appeal in the case where Black gave evidence. Will the Minister assure the House that there is in existence a detailed and up-to-date code on the treatment of suspects and their interrogation?
I shall not burden the noble Lord the Minister with any more questions or requests for assurances, although there are many more that could be asked. But I hope that I have made the point that if the Hillsborough agreement is to be made to work there must be substantial amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, and those amendments are not on offer this afternoon. We welcome, so far as it goes, the amending order, but your Lordships will have gathered that we consider the amendments to be marginal. The essence of the emergency provisions Act remains untouched.
The order will not satisfy the widespread concern in parts of Northern Ireland about the working of the

19
Act. Neither will it satisfy the critics (and they are growing in number) of the system within the legal system. Of course we are glad that a few more offences are to be certified out of the Act at the discretion of the Attorney-General, but it does not go far enough. Reference has been made to the late Sir George Baker; but let it be remembered that the late Sir George Baker, after he had investigated the operation of the Act, recommended a vast increase in the number of crimes capable of being certified out.
We also recall that Baker had recommended that the power to certify out could also be given to the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions, in order to reduce delays in having to send a case to the Attorney-General in London for certification. Why has this recommendation not been accepted? Was it too radical a piece of devolution? Is it being suggested that the office of the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions is open to improper pressures? It simply is not good enough for the Minister to come before the House and say that the Attorney-General has decided to reserve this power to himself.
I conclude by suggesting that any legislation which amends the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act must be judged by the contribution that it can make to the restoration of normality in the Province. By that test, if your Lordships agree that it be a fair test, the order before the House has little significance; but nevertheless it is a small step in the right direction.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, as we have been reminded, it is approaching eight years since the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act we are discussing today came on to the statute book. It is right that it should be regularly reviewed. I too join in this opportunity to pay tribute to those working away with courage for better times. Terrorist violence by paramilitary organisations, both republican and so-called loyalist, makes the continuation of the provisions of this Act unfortunately necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, fairly emphasised this point.
Since 1969, about 2,500 people have been killed as a result of terrorist activity, and conditions in the Province, we realise, are still strained. At the same time it is of vital importance that the emergency legislation does not militate against the achievement of an overall strategy for Northern Ireland based on the belief that terrorism cannot be defeated by emergency measures alone. There is a vital need to secure political settlement and allow the Anglo-Irish Agreement to play its part. Bearing all this in mind, the Alliance parties in Great Britain believe that some alterations to the emergency provisions need to be made now. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, expressed his concern about this.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson chaired a joint Alliance commission to consider, "What future for Northern Ireland?" It produced an effective report and a number of positive proposals. I am grateful to him for his lead, and I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his introduction of these orders this afternoon.
The central principles of British justice continue to be applied in Northern Ireland. What we have to
20
consider now is whether departures from normal judicial standards and standards of civil liberties are necessary and effective or are thought to be counterproductive in the fight against terrorism. Let us start with the Diplock courts. Unfortunately jury trial for terrorist offences is likely to be impossible for some time to come. Jurors can too easily be threatened and intimidated. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said on this point, but I disagree. This situation has led to the present arrangement by which trials are held under a single judge.
The first point I wish to raise is that it is said that because of the shortage of judges it is necessary to continue with only one judge if longer delays are to be avoided in bringing suspects to trial. But we believe that this puts too much responsibility on the judgment of that one person. In the Irish Republic they do better. In their special criminal courts, terrorist cases are heard by a panel of three members of the judiciary, one of whom may be a district judge. If a similar procedure could be introduced in the North it would help to bring the position into a welcome closer harmony with the Republic.
Here I shall briefly refer to the amendment order also before us today. The Alliance has for some time been pressing for offences to be descheduled so that non-terrorist offences can be tried before a jury. We therefore welcome this order based on Sir George Baker's recommendations of two years ago. We also believe that the list of scheduled offences should be regularly and vigorously examined.
I understand that in a recent study undertaken by the Cobden Trust it was alleged that no fewer than 40 per cent. of those tried by the Diplock courts had no apparent connection with terrorism. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, would comment on that when he comes to reply. If that is true, a substantial number of cases should be taken away from the Diplock courts and it would lessen the number of cases where, as in some Gilbertian opera, the judge has to warn himself that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an informer or accomplice.
The use of so-called supergrasses may hardly seem to be an admirable procedure—once again, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has referred to this—but such evidence is accepted in the criminal courts in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Scotland, and also in the Irish Republic. Our position is that we see no basis for denying the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland this weapon in the case of terrorist crime.
Sir George Baker, in his review of the emergency provisions Act, recommended that there should never be more than 20 defendants in any such trial. We share his concern, but we believe that the number of defendants at any one trial should not exceed six save in exceptional circumstances.
There are a number of other points about which we are uneasy, and again I should welcome comments from the Minister. First, I refer to the long delay that often takes place before suspects in scheduled cases are brought to trial. In 1983, the average time between remand and trial for prisoners refused bail and charged with terrorist offences in Northern Ireland was 322 days. This figure was given in a Written Answer in the

21
Official Report of another place on 20th July 1984. Where the delay is the responsibility of the prosecution we consider that the defendant should automatically be entitled to bail after 110 days in custody, if he is charged with a scheduled offence, and be released if charged with a non-scheduled offence. This would surely lessen a not unjustified sense of grievance.
Secondly, we should consider the treatment of suspects by the security forces. We believe that a standard of reasonable suspicion rather than suspicion should be required before the special powers of arrest or search under the emergency legislation can be used. It is also particularly important in the Province that justice not only should be done but should be seen to be done. To this end we would encourage the use of closed circuit television for all interviews in a police station and the idea that every interview there should be tape recorded for use as evidence. Confessions should only be accepted if it can be shown without doubt that physical violence or the threat of it by the police has not been used.
Thirdly, we believe, in support of the seventh protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, that there should be compensation for any conviction subsequently reversed or a pardon given. This seems a fair step following a miscarriage of justice. I shall refer briefly to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. While we consider it essential for the defeat of terrorism, it is still held in some nationalist quarters to be anti-Irish. We should therefore like to see it replaced by legislative provision jointly agreed by the British and Irish Governments and applicable in both parts of Ireland. Loyalists would of course need to be convinced that this was a practical move in cooperation against terrorists.
Whatever the noble Lord the Minister feels about the points I have raised, I hope he will agree that there are areas of controversy associated with emergency powers which deserve regular scrutiny. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, in its submission to Sir George Baker, recommended that a special select committee of the House of Commons be established for this purpose, hearing evidence in secret where necessary. However, we believe that this task would be better carried out by a select committee of a reformed Northern Ireland Assembly, provided that it was properly representative of the two communities.
Finally, we support the introduction of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. We emphasise that the rights will of course be conferred on every citizen of the Province and not merely on the minority community. I understand that a Bill of Rights would be supported by Official Unionists, Democratic Unionists and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Since it is also supported by the SDLP the Bill of Rights is one proposal which commands the allegiance of all the main constitutional parties of the Province. Surely this all too rare accord should not be thwarted.

Channel Fixed Link
3.49 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made
22
in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Channel Fixed Link.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of France, meeting earlier today in Lille, announced the decision of the two Governments to take together the necessary steps to facilitate the construction of a fixed link across the Channel by the Channel Tunnel Group. Copies of the joint Statement are being made available in the Vote Office.
"We will publish as soon as possible a White Paper that will give the full reasons for this decision. It will also chart the next steps to give effect to that decision: the Treaty, the Concession Agreement and the legislation.
"The two Governments were faced with four proposals of outstanding quality which reflect great credit on the firms involved. It is remarkable that such keen competition could develop to provide and finance privately a project of this magnitude. The key factors that led the Government to select the Channel Tunnel Group were as follows.
"Eurobridge was eliminated largely on technical grounds. It is an imaginative and forward looking proposal, but the technical risks make it too speculative for the two Governments to believe it was likely to be financed and successfully completed.
"The choice between Channel Tunnel Group, Channel Expressway and Euro-Route was a more difficult one. They differ widely as to their technical characteristics, their impact on the environment, their effect upon shipping, and their vulnerability to terrorist attack—all factors in the decision. The Invitation to Promoters made it clear that any fixed link had to be financed, constructed and operated without support from public funds, and without Government guarantees against technical and commercial risks. It is thus for investors ultimately to determine whether a fixed link is built. The Governments had to try and select the scheme which offered the best prospects of attracting investors' support.
"Both Euro-Route and Channel Expressway answer the popular desire to drive from one country to the other with the independence and freedom of a drive-through link. But both have large technical risks. CTG's is a well-developed project, relying on well-proven technology and is both less risky and less expensive. It offers a fast and efficient rail shuttle service, for road passengers and freight, with very frequent departures and no booking. It presents no problems to maritime traffic in the Channel and is the least vulnerable to terrorist attack. Its environmental impact can be reduced to an acceptable level. The Government concluded that CTG was the best scheme to go forward to the market.
"The Government remain very much aware of the arguments that the public would like a drive-through link. In due course the conditions may arise when a drive-through link would be viable. We have therefore secured an undertaking from the CTG that

23
they will put forward by the year 2000 a proposal for a drive-through link, to be undertaken as soon as its technical feasibility is assured, and economic circumstances and the growth of traffic allow it to be financed without undermining the return on the original link. At a later stage, the Governments will be free to invite competitive bids for a further link coming into operation not before 2020.
"I expect the signature of the Anglo/French Treaty to take place in February: and the concession agreement between the Governments and the Channel Tunnel Group to be concluded shortly thereafter. The legislation will then be introduced into this House as soon as possible. Construction could begin by the summer of 1987.
"Consultations in Kent have so far focussed on the question of which scheme the Government should adopt. We must now concentrate upon making the chosen scheme as acceptable as possible. We will want to minimise the environmental impact, and to consider carefully the employment consequences of this development. We will be sympathetic if problems seem likely to arise in East Kent when the link opens some seven years from now.
"We must arrive at satisfactory arrangements with the promoters for the disposal of spoil and on other environmental matters and we will ensure that the necessary road infrastructure is provided. The White Paper will deal with these questions.
"The Channel Tunnel is a massive and difficult project. It will be a challenge to our engineers, our technicians and our financial institutions. Equally, I believe it will be of great benefit to travellers and exporters alike in giving them cheaper, quicker and more reliable access to the Continent of Europe."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement and, whatever noble Lords' opinions might be of the desirability of a fixed link or the project selected, I think it would be generally agreed that this is an historic Statement. When we debated the question of a fixed link on 13th December last, I stressed then that there had been inadequate parliamentary discussion and also inadequate national consideration of whether or not there should be a fixed link. That still remains the opinion of these Benches at this stage, particularly in the light of all the other massive schemes that are required: schemes such as housing and other problems; and we shall be debating housing on another day. All these factors, we believe, have not been adequately considered.
The Statement says that the White Paper will be published as soon as possible. Will the Minister give an assurance that the White Paper will include the conclusions of the 20 assessment teams and the reasons for their various conclusions? Will the noble Earl give an assurance that the White Paper will be debated before the treaty is signed? The Statement says that the treaty is to be signed in February. The noble Earl may say that this is a matter for the usual channels to discuss, but I would ask that the noble Earl discuss
24
this matter with his noble friend the Leader of the House and ensure that, not only in this House but also in the other place, there is a debate on the White Paper before the treaty is signed.
When we debated the matter on 13th December, the noble Earl explained the procedure of the hybrid Bill and the Select Committee that will be necessary. Has consideration been given to the possible timetable for that procedure? Will the noble Earl give an assurance that there will be no inhibitions on the organisations or individuals who may wish to petition and appear before the Select Committee?
At that debate, I stressed that whatever fixed link there should be, if it were decided to have a fixed link, there must be included a rail link. Therefore it is not my intention at this time, despite all the points raised in the Statement, to go into the merits or demerits of the four schemes mentioned, but to express satisfaction that if there is to be a tunnel link, it will be a rail link. Does acceptance of the Channel Tunnel Group project mean that the Government have decided on the British Rail proposal for the expenditure of between £250 million and £350 million, to which the noble Earl referred in our previous debate? Will this be above its EFL (External Financial Limits)? Will every opportunity be taken, as we have heard, for lots of discussion about express rail traffic between London and Paris? Will the noble Earl give an assurance that every opportunity will be taken to provide for through rail freight links with the Midlands, the North, Scotland and South Wales?
The Statement also said that the Government will ensure that necessary road infrastructure will be provided. Does this mean that the expenditure will be additional money to that provided already by the Government for road construction? Will the Government give an assurance that the British share of construction costs will be spent on British materials and will be spread over as many regions as is practical and possible? Will the Minister also confirm that the requirement which (the Statement says) is to be obtained from the Channel Tunnel Group, that they will put forward by the year 2000 proposals for a road drive-through link, does not imply that already the Government accept the necessity for, and desirability of, a road tunnel?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to greet this Statement with enthusiasm; although that is not to say that one may not be critical of certain parts of the details. But, basically, let it be known that the Alliance believes that a link of this sort is important to the future of this country, and therefore we have come to the conclusion that the Government on this occasion have come to the right answer for the right reasons. Of crucial importance is to have a rail link between the industrial heartland of this country—Scotland, the North and the Midlands—through into the industrial heartlands of Europe. The Channel Tunnel Group proposals seem to me to provide that in the best possible measure.
4 p.m.
We well understand that emotionally people will want to drive through the tunnel to France, but that is not really a matter which touches on the national

25
interest: that would be a nice dab of cream on top of the cake at some stage, although I see that it is not likely to happen under this proposal until the year 2020: and perhaps I could suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, should be asked to open it on that occasion! Personally I feel that the opportunity of driving 50 kilometres through a tunnel under the Channel is not something I should myself like to undertake, but presumably there had to be some nod to the Prime Minister's susceptibilities; and this seems to be the way out.
Let me just say that the fact that there have been four imaginative proposals—"tenders" would be the wrong word—for this link does great credit to the British engineering industry. If I may say so, on a slightly different subject, having been down to the South Atlantic just before Christmas and having seen the way in which the civil engineering industry down there has built the complex at Mount Pleasant, I have every confidence that this piece of engineering can be completed on time and within budget.
One of the virtues of the scheme which has been accepted is that it does the minimum damage to the ferry service. I believe it is important that we should maintain a viable ferry service out of Dover and Folkestone, for a number of reasons: partly because of employment prospects, but partly also as a strategic back-up. I do not believe that we should rely entirely on the Channel tunnel for all movements across the Channel at that part of the south coast, and I believe that the Channel Tunnel Group's proposals just about get the balance right. We will be able to maintain a reasonable ferry service out of Dover and Folkestone while producing the important rail link with Europe.
I think also that it minimises the environmental effect on Kent. But I want to ask the Government what sort of consultation they propose to undertake so far as Kent is concerned. The Statement says that we must now concentrate on making the chosen scheme as acceptable as possible. I hope that is not merely a cosmetic exercise, but that there will be some genuine consultation with the environmental groups and the people who are living in that area to ensure that the minimum environmental impact occurs. I do not believe that the environmental impact is all one way. It seems to me there might even be a reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicles passing through Kent, if goods can be moved on to rail. I believe that is an important consideration.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, there is a need for the Government to give some assurance that British Rail will have the finance available to put in the very necessary links. If this scheme is going to work to its maximum, whether it be links through London or the possibility of a link to the north through Reading, I believe the Government must give some assurance that British Rail will be allowed to generate the necessary finance to make sure that this scheme really is viable. I hope we shall not get the sort of answer that I got the other day from the noble Lord the Minister when we were talking about Stansted, where it seemed that there were two separate compartments: one for the expansion of Stansted and one for the expansion of British Rail, which must depend entirely on market forces. I hope that in this case, if there is a need for British Rail to be given some support, the Government
26
will be prepared to do that. I believe this Statement today is a statement of our belief in the European Community and in our membership within that community. Therefore your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the proposal has the wholehearted support of these Benches.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful for the warm response given to the Statement by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff. I believe this is an historic Statement and one that is properly repeated in this House.
Among other questions, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether we would publish all 20 assessments. The answer to that is "no", because it would not be right for the Government to seek to influence the banks and other institutions to which a successful promoter (that is, the CTG) will look for finance for the chosen link project. It would be for the successful promoter to put the details of the project in the form in which it is to go ahead to potential investors, to allow them to decide whether to invest in it without a Government guarantee in any form, expressed or implied. So the commercial aspects, which are confidential, will not be published. As much of the results of the other assessments as can be published will be put into the White Paper. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that it would be quite wrong for us to put in the commercial aspects.
The noble Lord quite rightly said that if there is to be a debate on the White Paper that would be a matter for the usual channels. I see my Chief Whip in his place and I am sure he will take note of the noble Lord's request. The timetable for the procedure of a hybrid Bill will very much depend upon the petitioners and on the amount of time it takes to get through the special Committee stage. As to those who can petition, I do not think I can add to the comments I made last December: I would merely confirm them.
Both noble Lords asked me about the rail infrastructure. It is intended that British Rail expenditure on the link should be approved in principle, but, as both noble Lords will be aware, expenditure will not be incurred for some years but will have to be accommodated within the EFT. during the years.
A noble Lord: Oh dear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with both noble Lords that there should be a good rail link to the rest of the country. A section of it is in position at the moment and I am sure that British Rail will seek to improve this where commercially justified. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me whether the Government would make sure that the work incurred by this project would be distributed fairly round the country. That is something in which the Government would not seek to intervene. It is a matter for the concessionaires themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, ended by referring to a road tunnel. Of course he must not prejudge the situation. There is the possibility of a road link, which might be a tunnel or a bridge.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned the ferry service. I agree with him that a viable ferry service is

27
important. He will appreciate that it is of particular concern to me, especially in view of the role that ferries play in the defence of the country.
The noble Lord also referred to our consultations with regard to minimum impact on the environment. I can tell him that we are forming a joint consultative arrangement with Kent County Council. This will include representation probably to an inter-governmental commission to look at these matters. There will also be a special study into the particular effects on Kent. That is what I meant by the words used in the Statement. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome of the Statement.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can please help us a little more as regards the special procedure of hybridity and Select Committees? As I understand it, if you are a member of a Select Committee—and I have sat on a committee on a hybrid Private Bill—you sit acting as a jury, the various people present their case to you in one way or another and you decide on the merits of the case. With the Okehampton By-pass Joint Select Committee, the Government thought one thing was going to happen but another thing happened. That is not unusual in this world. Does that not mean that it is quite possible that there will be the most frightful foul-up in the Select Committee procedure? What happens if the various members of the Select Committee say, "We agree with petitioner X"? That in the effect ruins the plan put forward by the concessionaires who have been selected. I realise it is a highly technical question, but I think there is considerable importance and merit in finding out what the answer will be and what the Government will do about it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it will be for Parliament to decide the result following the Select Committee's deliberations. Although the Select Committee might agree with a point of a petitioner, if it comes to the amount of detail that my noble friend mentioned it will be for Parliament to decide and for the concessionaire to take it forward as a result of what Parliament decides.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I welcome the Government's decision, but I should like to ask my noble friend whether he agrees that any charge of undue haste or lack of consultation is really stretching language beyond what is permissible, for discussion, consultation and argument have been going on for a very long time indeed. Indeed, I hope my noble friend will recall that we have travelled thus far and even farther before, and still the thing has been frustrated.
I should like to ask my noble friend about two points. First, will he ensure that people do not just talk from a distance about consultation in Kent and in Surrey, but that consultations take place where they really are valid, on the spot, with Ministers there and not just underneath a shower of paper and written communications? The second question which I should like to ask him, and on which I should like to press him, is about the need for a really effective rail link between the tunnel and London, because it is there, in my view, that everything about this adventure could be frustrated. The need for a rail link which will
28
accommodate not just the commuter traffic that is there already but the immensely enhanced traffic which will flow from the tunnel is absolutely paramount, and the Government should not stand back from it with their arms too much folded.
There is one last point which I should like to make, if I may intrude upon the patience of your Lordships' House. I should like to ask my noble friend to ensure that this imaginative project evokes from the ranks of the Government some real enthusiasm, and that it is not hindered and chopped about by our ghastly and hideous procedures.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, first I agree with my noble friend that this matter has not been dealt with in undue haste. I think we have been discussing it for close on 200 years and have had two false starts, so perhaps it might be a case of third time lucky. I confirm that the consultation that we propose in Kent will be for real and not just mounds of paper. This is very important. I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary the point that my noble friend made with regard to an effective rail link because I, too, think this is very important. There is Government enthusiasm. The procedures—certainly in this House—are up to us to decide, so I should not like to influence that position.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the "ghastly and hideous procedures" referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will have to be overcome before a spade is put into the ground? Is it not possible that the Government are being rather over-ambitious when they say that work on the scheme is likely to start in the summer of 1987? I note from the Statement that signature of the treaty will take place in February. This will be followed by the concession agreement between the Governments and the Channel Tunnel Group. Then legislation will be introduced into the House as soon as possible, and so on.
But can the Minister say whether the legislation which normally covers a treaty will, in fact, be covered by the main hybrid Act to which he has referred? Is it not possible that the processing of this hybrid Bill will take far longer than the Government appear to assume? Is it not the case that it is the experience of Parliament over very many years that Bills involving hybridity make for great complexity and, if people are to be given the opportunity, as they should be, to petition on the Bill and to give evidence, then the procedure could take far longer than is at present anticipated?
Lastly, is it the case that the Bill and its procedures will subsume the normal procedures of planning authorities? In a normal case there would be a public inquiry; the Minister would call it in, and the inquiry would be held locally. Does the noble Earl agree that there is considerable local concern in the south of England about this great development, and is it not important that the people of that area should be given the opportunity to make proper representations on planning and other aspects? Can the Minister confirm, therefore, that the normal procedures under planning legislation will, in fact, be absorbed by the hybrid Bill?
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that, if the hybrid Bill takes longer to get through Parliament and to reach its conclusion than we have suggested at the present time, work will not start. Although the treaty might be signed next month—and we hope will be signed next month—it will not be ratified until the hybrid Bill has passed through its procedure in Parliament, and until it has passed through its procedure in Parliament and the treaty has been ratified no work will be able to start. As to whether that will take longer than we estimate at this stage, we shall have to wait and see. The noble Lord has much greater experience of the length of time hybrid Bills take than I have, but we hope that it will not be unduly delayed. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me whether the normal planning procedures were being subsumed by the hybrid Bill. To some extent they are, because this is a national matter. Though it is local to Kent, it is also of very great national importance and, therefore, it is right that Parliament should decide; but a great deal of the normal planning procedures will be dealt with by the Kent County Council.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I should like to join those who have welcomed this announcement. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the assurance he has given us in response to the questions already asked about consultation with Kent. He will be aware. I am sure, that there are considerable anxieties both about employment and about the environment, and therefore the assurance that he has given us is most welcome. I should like to repeat in a slightly different form one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to ask whether the White Paper will give an assurance that there will be access points well away from Kent, because the last thing we want is a greater concentration of traffic building up outside Cheriton.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the right reverend Prelate. To my knowledge there certainly will be an access point in London, which is fairly well outside Kent. But I think that we shall have to wait for the White Paper, in order to see the details.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I return to a point which I put to the Minister in our debate on 13th December, and which has been obliquely referred to in several questions today; namely, the procedure for the hybrid Bill? May I ask whether the Government have had any further thoughts about my suggestion that it should be referred to a Select Committee of the two Houses, thus minimising the cost to petitioners and maximising the speed at which this very desirable project can be got through?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that we have given this matter thought. There are very great advantages both in what he suggests and in letting both Houses have their own committees. We have not reached a final conclusion on the deliberations.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether further thought has been given to
30
the ways in which we are to safeguard the survival of the ferry services?—because now that the decision has been taken which must in principle leave the traffic at the mercies of Mr. Knapp and Mr. Buckton and their opposite numbers on the French side, we could well need them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will be a good deal about ferries in the White Paper, and we have given this matter very careful consideration.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I warmly welcome the fact that a decision has been taken in this matter but I should like to ask one question. As I say, while I am glad that a decision has been taken and although I might myself perhaps favour a bridge as well as the high-speed rail tunnel, I should like to ask my noble friend whether both Governments have taken fully into account the experience of the Japanese in building their Seikan tunnel between the two islands and the very considerable problems associated with it, extending over some 20 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Bessborough that we have considered this matter.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, the Minister has said that normal planning procedures are to be overridden in the case of the terminal. Can he say whether compulsory purchase orders will be subject to normal appeal and public inquiry procedures?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I may clarify the point to my noble friend, I did not say "all normal planning procedures"; I said "some", because that is where Parliament comes in. With regard to compensation, I understand that the appeal mechanism will work as at the moment.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, as this is still the age of the train, the financial advantages of this plan are to be shared equally by British Rail and the French state railways?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether this is the age of the train. I think it is the age of improved choice for people coming through France and through this country to get from one side of the Channel to the other.
Lord Alport: My Lords, it was merely a statement on my part, rather than a question. May I ask my noble friend whether, in regard to the second part of my question, the Government have ensured that the financial benefits of this scheme are shared equally between British Rail and the French state railways?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is a matter for British Rail and the French railways. I understand that they have an agreement in principle.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to ask yet another question, but I should like to go back to what my noble friend said when he stated that Parliament will make the decision on what the Select Committee says. Does this mean in effect that if the committee says that it agrees with petitioner A, public policy is

31
such that the Whips will be on to overturn that amendment? And it does not matter whether it is in this House or in another place. If that is the case, it is then almost pointless having a petition at all. This is a very difficult problem and I understand the difficulty the Minister is in. I sympathise with him very much indeed, and I sympathise with everybody concerned. But it is a problem and it is something that I think the petitioners should like to know; and, last of all, I should like to know.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, to answer my noble friend Lord Onslow, Parliament is paramount in these matters, not the Select Committee. As to whether there is a Whip put on by the opposition parties or by my own party, that is entirely a matter for the respective Chief Whips.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order 1985
Debate resumed.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, we now come back to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, and I should like to start by expressing my personal thanks to the noble Lord the Chief Whip and to the other usual channels for arranging to have this order debated during the afternoon of a normal working day. In expressing those thanks I think it is right for me to re-emphasise why this is such an important order.
As has been said before, it concerns the right to life. It is for the prevention of terrorism and for the protection of innocent people from violence. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said earlier, it affects a large part of the administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. Of its very nature it is bound to have a major impact on relations between the two segments of the community. There has been no lack of people who have argued that because of the existence of this Act and its predecessor Northern Ireland may be considered as a failed political entity. I do not share that view; nor do I share the view of those who have argued that pre-trial delays are tantamount to the imposition of detention. Nevertheless these are very serious issues with which we should all be concerned and they do highlight the great importance of the order.
I have the greatest personal sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, speaking from the Front Bench, because we all know that the subject matter of this order is not one with which he is personally concerned. We look back with affection and perhaps regret to the days of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who did have departmental responsibility for this very difficult subject. Having said that, I am bound to say that the order and the amendments with which we have been presented are very disappointing. It is now nearly two years since Sir George Baker presented to the Government and to Parliament his report on the underlying legislation. No one could say that his report was radical or way out or outrageous in any way. It was
32
a most careful, pondered and considered document. The amendments we have today in no way measure up to his recommendations, which numbered, I believe, 74 or thereabouts.
What we are presented with today does not satisfy bodies such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Relations or the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland, and it does not satisfy me. Had the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, come to us and said, "We now have the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We now have the Conference of Ministers. These things, A, B, C and D, will be on the agenda of the conference, and for that reason we cannot have a proper and full amending order today", everybody would have been satisfied. The noble Lord did not say that. In general I should like to point out that, taking the whole subject matter, we have this Act, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the forthcoming legislation which we have been promised on the lines of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act for England—I should like to ask in that context when this Northern Ireland legislation will be brought forward—and we also have pending, and I hope soon in force, the new police complaints procedure for Northern Ireland. All these four things interact and inter-connect and it would be of very great assistance if they could be brought together in an understandable form so that every one knows what their rights are and where they stand.
My next point concerns future reviews of the operation of the Act. In the parallel field of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, last year the Government appointed one commissioner. Sir Cyril Phillips, to review the operation of the Act. If we could have a similar system for this Act we would be able to have very much more informed debates. Perhaps the Government would consider asking Sir Cyril whether he would review both Acts since they are so closely inter-connected? I should like to ask the Government whether I am right in thinking that the secretariat of the Conference of Ministers will be the identifier in future of thorny issues in this whole field. One can produce many instances of past thorny issues. I am thinking of detention, of plastic and rubber bullets, of strip searching of women prisoners and many other things which have led to great public agitation. Because they were not clearly dealt with when they first raised themselves, they developed into very difficult and major problems, which have proved divisive.
I move on to the question of statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when speaking in our debate last July, gave a definite undertaking that the Government would be publishing statistics on the operation of the emergency provisions Act. So far as I know, we have not been given those statistics. When will we be given them? If the Irish Information Partnership can produce a certain amount of data on this whole matter, then surely the Government can do somewhat better.
As to the arrest, stopping and questioning of people, I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Hampton. So far as I am aware, nothing was said by the Government this afternoon about the question of reasonable suspicion. It is high time that we were told something on that matter.

33
Mention was made—again by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—of Diplock courts and the possibility of having more than one judge. That is a very important matter. I should like to return to the suggestion I made last July, of the accused before a Diplock court having the option of going for trial by jury not in Northern Ireland but in, for instance, England or Scotland. That suggestion was rather summarily ruled out by the noble Lord last summer, but I believe it is still worthy of examination.
Considerable mention has been made today of the supergrass question. We know from reports in the Irish Times that that subject will be on the agenda for the Conference of Ministers. Meanwhile, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the detailed paper by Mr. J. D. Jackson of Queen's University that was printed in full in the tenth report of the Standing Advisory Committee is being carefully scrutinised? It provided safeguards for the accused in these matters. I received no reply whatsoever on this aspect last July. Were any of those safeguards applied in the recent Kirkpatrick case? I rather doubt it. Can the noble Lord tell the House how many new supergrass cases are coming up through the pipeline—particularly in view of the number of recent cases in which the judge has dismissed the whole proceedings?
I must return also to the question of coroners' inquests, which I have raised on a number of previous occasions. I am particularly concerned about the shootings that took place in and around Armagh in December 1982—three years ago. So far there has been no inquest. A special inquiry was set up by the chief constable. A deputy chief constable was brought in from England. He went into the matter at great length and with great care, and has produced a report. So far, only the chief constable of Northern Ireland has seen that report. It is said to be on the way to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We do not know whether it has yet reached him. We do not know what the outcome will be of his consideration of that report. We are now three years further on and the material witnesses must be starting to forget what happened so long ago. If there is to be an inquest eventually, of what value will it be? Those are worrying matters.
I cannot avoid mentioning the whole subject of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which the noble Lord touched upon. There is the police authority, which we believe and expect will be strengthened, reorganised and put on a more comprehensive and representative footing. Can the noble Lord confirm that that is so? There is also the question of the recruitment of Roman Catholics into the police, on which I made some quite detailed suggestions last summer. There is the matter of police and public liaison committees on which I have spoken on several occasions. On one occasion back in the time of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I devoted a whole speech to the work of the committee, which has operated so successfully for so long in Derry city and which has the special strength of having among its members representatives of local community organistions. There is the question also of the code of practice, particularly for the arrest and interrogation of suspects, and there is also the taping and possibly even filming of interrogations, which was touched on earlier today.
In conclusion, may I return yet again to the subject
34
of human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, may think that I am the only person who is interested in that subject. That is not so. There are many people, both in your Lordships' House and without, who take human rights very seriously. I submit that if we can reach a stage of affairs in Northern Ireland where human rights are clearly protected by law and respected by Government, then all sides of a divided community will be helped to accept their civic responsibilities as well as their rights. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, gave me a rather dusty answer when I raised that question in last week's debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I am asking the Government that far greater resources in time and energy be devoted to the question of human rights than has been the case up to now.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, there are one or two noble Lords remaining who wish to speak. Would the Minister like to reply at the end?
Lord Lyell: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords. I only want to add a couple of notes to the case of the parties on these Benches that my noble friend put extremely well. One point that is worth stressing is that one object of the regulations is to fight terrorism. The risks of terrorism in the next 18 months are certainly greater than they have ever been before. In the first place, the Anglo-Irish Agreement is poison to the IRA. There is no question of its laying off. It will intensify its actions. It is also fair to say that some of our friends on the Unionist side are making remarks that suggest they will not be sorry if some of their strongarm men behave as badly as they did before. The RUC will then have to face in two directions.
I do not think this is the moment to start going back on the absolutely necessary precautions of the Diplock courts. I think that it would be wrong to do so. The moment that there is any easing of the situation, one should go back as fast as one can to normal procedures. However, as the opposite is the case. I am surprised both by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who was speaking, as I believe he always does, with full Labour agreement, and by the noble Lord who has just spoken, who has at least his own agreement. I believe that they are both heavily overdoing the ease of the present situation, which is in many ways looking worse than it ever has done. That is the first point I wanted to make.
I do not believe that one can do very much more than increase the descheduling. I agree with everybody who has spoken, that the Government have not gone as far as they could over descheduling. I believe that they could go quite a lot further. The Cobden report that 40 per cent. of crimes are not connected with terrorism, even if it is only half true, suggests that the Government could go further than they have done. But I should not want to see most crimes wherein one suspects terrorism tried with a jury; I think that you would simply get an awful lot of jurymen who would either lie or, more likely, he murdered. I think that the situation is so had that it has become very important that someone in this House should stand up and say,

35
"For goodness sake, be a bit careful about civil rights". The greatest of civil rights is for a prison officer to be able to walk the streets without it being likely that he will be shot; or for people to be able to go to their door without the possibility of being shot in the presence of their child. Under the Diplock courts, if there is a witness to such an act, then that witness can give evidence in court without being exposed. If there are not the Diplock arrangements no witness will ever come forward. Make no mistake about that.
The only other point I wish to make is that the exciting thing at the moment is not this. The exciting thing is that the Government have had the courage to get this agreement. They have also had the courage to say that they will persevere with it whatever happens and whatever threats they receive. Good luck to them! I support them fully. I believe that in two or three years' time, if they stick to their intentions, we shall get the only thing which can produce any of the results for which people are asking today, and that is an assembly which is reasonably representative of the population of Northern Ireland and which can take over some part of the government. That is the only thing which will do any good; nothing else will, my Lords.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is rarely that your Lordships' House has an opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland matters in the prime time of this House. When I came in this afternoon I was agreeably surprised to see such a large attendance, which even included three or four Bishops, and momentarily I thought that a great new interest was being shown in Northern Ireland affairs. I had forgotten, for the moment, about the Channel Tunnel. So, now we are back again, as we have been for many years both in this House and in another place. There are a few Members of this House and there are a few in the other place who are interested in Northern Ireland affairs. Sometimes we have a new recruit; sometimes we lose one or two people. That has been the case since the introduction of these provisions in 1973.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, quite rightly drew attention to what was said in the committee in another place when this Bill was being discussed in 1973. Then I was very much opposed to the abolition of jury trials. I believed that the system of the jury as it prevailed throughout the United Kingdom, was something that should not be abolished without a great deal of thought. That was 12 years ago. I say now that my misgivings at that time were certainly well held and held in all conscience. But many years have elapsed since then and we have lived through a period of mayhem and murder such as I never believed it would be my misfortune to see in my lifetime. If I have a changed opinion now, that opinion is held in all conscience and in all sincerity. It is not because politics have changed or because I am not the leader of the SDLP and I am no longer a member of the Republican Labour Party. It is because I have lived through this terrible trauma of Northern Ireland. I ask myself and your Lordships' House: does anyone really believe that a jury could have been found which would have acted in the recent case of the supergrass Kirkpatrick? Does anyone really believe that a jury could be picked
36
anywhere from within the whole population of Northern Ireland which would have sat down and deliberated in any of the supergrass trials?
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way, would he accept that nobody who has spoken today has gone beyond suggesting a multi-judge court or the possibility of the accused electing or opting for jury trial in another jurisdiction?
Lord Fitt: That is a suggestion, my Lords, which has been made by the noble Lord. As an Irishman, and more particularly as a Northern Irishman and as a Belfast man, I cannot see any accused person in Northern Ireland, whether he be Republican or Loyalist, electing to have his case heard in Kent, Cornwall, Glasgow or Liverpool. It may be all right for academics to say that this is a possibility, but it is something which will not happen.
Again, on the question that we have heard debated here and in another place—the question of terrorism and whether certain offences should be descheduled—what about the man with a gun who is holding up a shop, a supermarket, an off-licence or a bank? When he has a gun in his hands, that is the same sort of weapon that could be carried by a terrorist—and so far as the person at the other end of that gun is concerned, he is facing a terrorist. The terrorist may be robbing a bank for his own personal aggrandisement or he may be robbing it to fill the coffers of the UVF, the UDA or the IRA, but so far as the terrified individual at the other end of that gun is concerned, the gunman is a terrorist, and there is absolutely no way that anyone can assert that the "terrorist" who is wielding that gun should be treated any differently from the person who is holding a gun and collecting money to help his political organisation. They are terrorists in the only sense of the word which is understandable.
On the question of supergrasses, I should have liked to live this last 15 years of my life with the word "supergrass" being heard only in the context of gangsters and robbers, as it was once used in the underworld in London. I should have hoped that that term would never be applicable to the types of individual and the types of murder case which have been heard of in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I have lived through that period.
We have heard—my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, said it this afternoon, and I read it this morning in the Irish Times and last week in a lot of nationalist newspapers emanating from Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland—that some people were totally opposed to the convictions in the Kirkpatrick case, because those people who stood trial and were convicted were convicted on the word of a convicted murderer. That is quite right. But Kirkpatrick himself was convicted on the word of a supergrass, so is anyone going to say that he objects to the evidence of the supergrass which led to Kirkpatrick coming before the court? You cannot accept it on the one hand and not accept it on the other.
As regards the question of jurors and whether juries would be intimidated, we have heard in recent months of the alleged spy trial involving young airforce men in Cyprus. There, deep allegations were made against the

37
defence that they were deliberately picking people who were not well dressed and did not wear pinstriped suits but had long hair and razor blades hanging from their ears, on the grounds that they would be less likely to convict their clients, and how that would be a relatively legitimate course for the defence to take—and a lot of controversy had been aroused by the decisions of the jury in that case.
Say that we did have jury trials, however. When I stand in this House, as I did in another place, I believe that I am fortunate in not having been a member of either of the two major political parties. I have given my wholehearted consent and approval to almost every action of the Labour Party since I first came into the building in 1966. But had I been a member of that party I am certain that I should have been told, "That may be against party policy. It would be helpful if you did not say that". There were also Conservative governments in my time in the other place and I did not feel in any way inhibited about what they would expect me to say.
There will be no vote in this debate today, but I can still speak with the authority (for want of a better word) of having spent my life in Northern Ireland and seen the many terrorist acts. In the rarified atmosphere of this House we can say that it would be nice to reinstate jury trials in Northern Ireland. To that I shout "Yes", but it would be totally impossible in the present atmosphere. A jury could be intimidated, and how would one know that? A juror will not tell all his friends. A juror may be woken up in his home at night or threatened at any other time of the day with a gun pointed at his head. He may be told that if he finds the accused guilty the next time the trigger will be pulled. It is highly unlikely that he will tell the police or the security forces, because he will be frightened. He will comply with the wishes of his intimidator and find the accused not guilty.
If he is a man with tremendous courage, a great respect for the law and an abhorrence of terrorism and everything connected with it, he may find the accused guilty and he may be killed. Then we should meet in this House and a Statement would be issued in the afternoon that a juror in a supergrass or other trial had been killed. We should all express our sympathy with his wife and other relatives, but that would not bring him back. My sympathy, concern and compassion are for the victims of terrorism.
I do not go out of my way to make it easy for the terrorists by calling into question the purity of the law. We must not contaminate the law that we have had for a thousand years on the ground that it may do some injustice to some terrorist, who everybody in Northern Ireland knows will have been up to his neck in terrorist activities. Does anyone sitting in this House really believe that any of the accused in the supergrass trials are Sunday-school teachers or good citizens who have never been involved in such things? Everyone in Northern Ireland knows in his heart of hearts that if they were not involved up to the neck they were involved at least up to the elbows. That is the way I see it, speaking from experience.
However, in all sincerity I think that the Government should look at the possibility of having three judges rather than one in the Diplock courts. I think that that would do away with many of the
38
criticisms. My noble friend said that over the past 12 years young entrants to the legal profession have experienced the Diplock courts and that is not a nice experience. Even the judges know that it is not a nice thing that they should have to act under that constriction. That is true.
But I have another concern. In another place in the debate someone said that a new judge had been appointed, and he was lauded to high heaven for having the courage to accept an appointment in the Diplock courts. Praise was heaped on him. To say the least, his standard of living would not be terribly affected by accepting the appointment. I looked at my papers today. Fifty-four people were killed in Northern Ireland last year, 23 of whom were young RUC men. One RUC man was killed in the first five seconds of 1986 and his young colleague was badly maimed. I was in Northern Ireland recently and I visited the widow of a young RUC man who was brutally killed in the early hours of the morning. We both agreed that her husband's death was just another statistic; he is one of the 23. The world has forgotten about them. I think that far too much attention is paid in the legislation to the rights of the accused and far too little sympathy and compassion shown for the rights of their victims.
We shall have this legislation for some time. I say this to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies in the most friendly way possible. I repeat that all my political sympathies have been with the labour and trade union movement in this country, and I hope that they will continue to be in the years that I should like to see lying ahead. But I read the report of the proceedings in another place on 16th January, when Mr. Archer, the Labour Party spokesman on Northern Ireland said this at col. 1319 in criticising the Act:
"I come now to the question that I have been asked. In 1973 we on these Benches said that we were not persuaded by those arguments. But, when the provision was on the statute book, it seemed sensible to see how it worked. For some years it did not appear to give rise to any serious anxieties. Perhaps that was precisely because it did not seem to be achieving its stated purpose of increasing the conviction rate".
Some cynics in Northern Ireland will say that the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979, having to operate, as they did, with continuing terrorism in Northern Ireland, did not find it necessary to change the legislation, but when in opposition the Labour Party sees all sorts of difficulties. I hope that that is not true. The murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland go way beyond any party political division on this side of the Irish Sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, alluded to the continuing situation in Northern Ireland. He said that if human and civil rights were instituted it could lead to an end to the violence. That proves that he is an Englishman and I am an Irishman. What he said is not true. The last thing that the IRA wants is the institution of human and civil liberties in Northern Ireland. It uses whatever means it can to bring its campaign to a successful conclusion and bring about the unity of Ireland on its own political terms. It does not want to see the acceptance by the overwhelming majority of the people in Northern Irland of civil and religious liberty.
We have had the Anglo-Irish Agreement since 15th November last year. I have strong reservations about

39
the agreement but I desperately wish it to succeed. I say from this House, three or four days before an election takes place in Northern Ireland, that it is now time for the SDLP and its nationalist electors, who have achieved so much from this agreement—it has been a notable victory for Irish nationalism in the North—to say that it withdraws its objections against the RUC. These young men, every time they put on their uniforms, are showing far more courage than a judge who has been appointed to the High Court. There has been reference to the courage of the newly appointed judge.
Many of these young men are Catholics. Many of them have been brutally murdered. It is now time for the SDLP, having achieved a considerable victory by way of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to say—knowing, as only those who live in Northern Ireland do, the terrible trauma that engulfs that community every time an RUC man or, for that matter a UDR man, is killed—that it supports the security forces. If that was to happen, there would be no need to reintroduce this Act in six months' time. I only wish to God that it would happen.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, are the resounding finale that we always obtain from the noble Lord to a debate in which great attention has been paid to the remarks of all who have spoken. No one has spoken more from the heart than the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I should like to start by straightaway thanking the noble Lord for his robust support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and everyone concerned with security. Let us not forget the liberty that is so dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and, indeed, all of us. The robust remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will go out from your Lordships' House tonight, and they will, I am sure, be very much welcomed. I am grateful to him for the tone of his remarks.
It is fair to say that when we debate Northern Ireland issues your Lordships' House is not always packed to the doors. I shall certainly see that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the timing of the debate are passed on to my noble friend the Chief Whip. Those of your Lordships who attend and contribute in all sorts of ways to a debate such as that taking place today are the regulars. I say this intending no disparagement. We are grateful for the attention that they always give. Everyone makes helpful and constructive points. This afternoon has been no different.
I know from the various comments that have been made that there is some disappointment that we have not yet been able to bring forward a Bill to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I can only reiterate that we will bring forward a Bill when the parliamentary timetable permits and—I give this undertaking—certainly in the life of this Parliament. But our central message this afternoon is that we are determined to deal with and ultimately to defeat terrorism within and through the law. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will bear that in mind, as, I am sure, all your Lordships will. I add as a
40
rider that this will be done with the minimum necessary use of emergency powers such as those we are discussing.
Beyond that, I would ask all constitutional politicians not to look for differences but to look for the common ground. No one has put this more succinctly than the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I believe that most people in Northern Ireland want a greater say in their own affairs; but most also want to see better employment prospects, and most have no time whatever for the terrorists. If the people of Northern Ireland can build on the things that we have in common, I am sure that the ultimate goal of peace and stability can be achieved. The Anglo-Irish Agreement, mentioned, I think, by every noble Lord who has spoken, is very much welcomed; and it can, of course, assist in this process. We hope that it will.
I should like now to try to answer as many as possible of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke in his usual forthright and robust style. I should like to thank the noble Lord and, indeed, everyone, for their tributes to the security forces, to the judges and to all who are concerned, or play some part in upholding law, order and liberty in Northern Ireland. I shall certainly see that the kind remarks that have been made are passed on to the relevant quarters.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned, so far as I can recall, the lowering of standards. I believe that those were his words. My notes refer to a departure from traditional standards. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the vast majority of criminal cases heard on indictment in Northern Ireland are heard before a jury. I would also remind the noble Lord and, indeed, all noble Lords, that the procedures in those cases are not affected by the emergency provisions in the Act we are discussing, nor by the continuance order, nor by the amendment order. It is only cases involving terrorist type offences that are tried before a court sitting without a jury. In such cases, there are compensating safeguards. The judge must prepare a written judgment. And there is, of course, an unrestricted right of appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and also, so far as I can recall, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised the question of what are called supergrasses. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made strong reference to these particular gentlemen and, indeed, this particular method. So far as supergrasses, or this method of justice, are concerned, the evidence of former accomplices, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the case of Mr. Kirkpatrick, is admissible in courts in Northern Ireland in the same way that it would be admissible in courts in Great Britain or, let us not forget, in courts in the Irish Republic. The responsibility for assessing the accuracy and the reliability of evidence given by former accomplices rests with the courts. It is not, luckily, a matter for Ministers, let alone a non-lawyer like myself, this afternoon. I would, however, remind your Lordships that the courts are required to assess whether the evidence amounts to proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that all the normal safeguards apply—such as trial in open court, the right to cross-examine

41
witnesses and the right to be legally represented at state expense. In scheduled and non-jury cases, additional safeguards apply to compensate for the fact that the court sits without a jury.
The use of former accomplice evidence has not debased the judicial system in Northern Ireland. I go further. I believe that the courts have demonstrated their integrity and, above all, their determination to uphold the highest standards of justice in the way that they have dealt with these difficult cases. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, where people are fearful of giving evidence—this is why the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, bear very heavily with us—against men of violence, evidence from former accomplices is, unfortunately, all too frequently the only way in which criminals can be brought to justice. I am confident that the evidence given by former accomplices has had a major impact on the ability of various terrorist organisations to maintain (and I can only call it this) their sordid and base campaigns of violence, and as a result many lives have been saved and the perpetrators of very many serious crimes have been brought to justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised the question of bail. I think it would not be for me to go into great detail this afternoon except to say that my right honourable friend the Member for Witney, who was the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, explained in June last year in another place that the Government intend to put the onus in bail applications in the scheduled cases, which mostly concern us this afternoon, on the prosecution rather than, as at present, on the defence. Judging by all that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and everything that has been discussed, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also took me up on the failure to delegate the power to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I covered the reasons for this in my opening remarks. I reiterate again that I think that the Attorney-General's advice reflects the gravity with which the Government regard this as the exercise of the power of certifying out. I really would not want to go further than that this evening. I am sorry that I cannot take it further, but if the noble Lord would wish to raise this point again we might perhaps cover it in detail on another occasion.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his remarks, for which I am very grateful. I am once again grateful for his support of the security forces and all that they do. The noble Lord raised several points. One was the need for more than one judge in the Diplock courts, reflecting on the need for more than one as a limit on the number of defendants. The Government accept the arguments of Sir George Baker (which repeated those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner) in favour of trial by a single judge for terrorist-type offences. This procedure has a number of advantages over any proposals for multi-judge courts, whether it be three or perhaps more. There are also substantial compensating safeguards, including an unrestricted right of appeal to the normal three-judge appeal court in Northern Ireland.
For the same reasons I have to admit that we see difficulties in restricting the number of defendants in
42
what we call the scheduled cases, particularly as this would have the unwelcome consequence of increasing waiting times between the first remand and trial.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton raised this point. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised many points, and I think that this was one: about regular scrutiny of the emergency provisions Act by an Assembly Select Committee. I explained this on the last occasion we were debating this Bill, and indeed the order. The Government see substantial difficulties in any such proposals to keep the exercise of the EPA powers under permanent review. All the current powers in the Act, unlike those in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, are already open to public scrutiny. Most of them are subject to judicial review. But any review both would find itself in what I think your Lordships would agree would be substantial difficulty if it was invited to comment on issues which were before the courts. I am sure that that is not an area into which we, or indeed any non lawyers, should venture. I believe that it would be very improper if we were so to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also raised the question of the figure of 40 per cent. of the scheduled suspects who had no connection with terrorism. I think it was in connection with the Cobden Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, also raised that point. I have to tell both Lord Donaldson and Lord Hampton that we have studied the booklets very carefully. I have to say that we do not find entirely convincing the method of calculation producing the 40 per cent. figure. This concerns a differing of opinion between the noble Lords and myself. But that sets out the Government's views, I hope succinctly.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the figure that my noble friend gave was 40 per cent. I said that even if it was half that figure it would still be significant. Does what the noble Lord is saying contradict that?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope not. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson makes. May I write to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on this point? I take the point of the noble Lord and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to go too deeply into this. I mean no discourtesy. I think that it would be the wish of your Lordships that, having studied everything that has been said by the two noble Lords on this particular pamphlet, I write to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a number of points. Some of them I had heard before and some I had not. I shall try to answer them. Indeed, I tried to answer some of them in July. The noble Lord asked first about the Government's intention to strengthen the police authority for Northern Ireland. I would assure the noble Lord, and indeed the House, that the Government are very conscious that a body which is as important as the police authority in Northern Ireland should be truly representative of the whole community there. The Government will continue to make very determined efforts to ensure that this is so and continues to be so. As part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement we have undertaken to consult the Government of the Irish Republic on appointments to this body. I think that this is a new departure since I spoke in July.

43
The noble Lord also raised one other point about bringing forward police and criminal evidence legislation so far as Northern Ireland would be concerned. The introduction of legislation in Northern Ireland, which parallels—whether 95 per cent. 98 per cent. or completely—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in England and Wales is, I have to tell him and I am sure he would accept, a very complex business. However, I give him this assurance: that work is well in hand on this legislation. It will be brought forward in due course. I hope that those last three words may indicate something to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord raised with me in July, and has raised again, the need for statistics. I assure him that we are working on the production of the data base which will allow the ready production of the appropriate statistics which he would want, and which I am sure will be of use to us. But our studies are continuing with regard to to a proper and significant data base.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the paper by Mr. J. D. Jackson, QC, on the safeguards in supergrass trials. This was mentioned in the SACHR report. I think that the noble Lord said that it was in paragraphs 83 to 94. I have to let him know that most of the safeguards in Mr. Jackson's paper were, and indeed are, already in force. If there are any details I can certainly pick up any gaps and let him know.
The noble Lord has raised this question—and indeed raised it with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—about allowing a trial in GB. I have to tell him we do not believe that this is appropriate in these cases, or indeed in any others. I think that it would involve a completely new departure to decide where one would opt for trial.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton also raised the question of liaison committees between police and public. I am sure that he would be interested to know that recent RUC proposals for truly representative local liaison committees have been held up by the recent disruption of council business in Northern Ireland, which I am sure is a story which will be well known to all noble Lords who are involved with, and study, Northern Irish affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked me about the question of a new offence of, what he called, reckless use of lethal force. I hope I have that right. Certainly the Government are not convinced that the case for creating a new offence has been sufficiently made out. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and your Lordships will be aware that the present law on the use of force enables the courts to give fair and detailed consideration to each case on its own merits. Very often, as the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, of all people, will be aware the merits of these cases are not such as we have them in civilised conditions, as we speak this evening. It is necessary for the courts to give fair and detailed consideration to every single case on its merits, and, of course, to reach an appropriate verdict.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a point about inquests. He referred to a number of cases which have come to your Lordships' notice and which have been widely discussed in the media and in the press in Northern Ireland. I am able to tell the noble Lord that
44
evidence which is given at inquests is not under oath and we do not believe that it could be reliable. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate to hold an inquest while there was still a possibility of criminal proceedings arising from the incident in question. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioning that as a rider when he raised the particular point about these incidents which, as far as I am aware, are still under discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also raised the question of reasonable suspicion. I mentioned this matter to your Lordships last July, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will accept that my remarks still stand. The Government intend to propose the repeal of Section 11(1) and (3) of the Act, leaving the police to rely on the emergency arrest powers contained in Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which already requires what we call "reasonable grounds for suspicion" before the power can be exercised. We intend that the other powers in the Act to arrest and to search dwelling-houses should also be exercisable only on the basis of reasonable suspicion. I hope that I have covered all the points which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a typically robust speech. I am sure that all your Lordships noted his forthright call for all sections of the community to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and all those—and, once again, these are matters dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and to all of us—who support liberty, life and freedom under the law in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will go out from your Lordships' House tonight, and we are grateful for his support.
I say again that the order which we are discussing this evening is an unfortunate necessity. The amendment order reflects the desire and the intention of the Government to amend the legislation, and we shall do this whenever we can and as soon as we can. I ask your Lordships to accept the first Motion in my name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1985
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this second Motion formally. We have had a lengthy debate and I do not think that there is anything further that I wish to say. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage (Wales) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the continuation in force of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 [S.I. 1982 No. 1203] be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this debate is to enable the House to review the achievements of the legislation providing for the compulsory wearing of seat belts and to decide whether we wish the measure to remain in force on a permanent basis.
Your Lordships' House is entitled to take something of a proprietorial interest in the seat belt law, since of course the actual provision originated here in the form of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent to the 1981 Transport Bill. My noble friend, who I am glad to see is in his place, has been widely and justifiably acclaimed for his tireless efforts and persuasive advocacy in promoting the case for compulsory seat belt wearing over a number of years. It was indeed a major personal triumph for him when the principle for compulsion was finally accepted here and in another place.
Acceptance of the principle was not, however, at that stage final. The view was taken, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, that there should be an opportunity to take one further look at the compulsion question in the light of experience over an initial period; an opportunity to examine whether the claims advanced on behalf of seat belt wearing had been borne out by reality—or, alternatively, whether the fears expressed by opponents had proved justified. Such was the object underlying the provision in the Transport Act that the seat belt regulations should lapse automatically after three years unless each House had by then resolved that they should remain in force but without a time limit. It is this issue which your Lordships' House is invited to consider this afternoon.
Crucial to our deliberations is a proper understanding of what has actually happened in the three years since compulsory seat belt wearing took effect. It was to help provide such an understanding, both inside Parliament and among others with an interest in the subject, that the Government carried out a full-scale monitoring exercise to assess the practical effects of the seat belt legislation. The results of that exercise are contained in a major report published by the Department of Transport last October and of course placed in the Library of the House. Noble Lords who have studied the report will be aware that it provides a full statistical analysis of seat belt wearing rates and the effect of set belt wearing on casualty trends. It also contains detailed studies of the relationship between seat belt wearing and the nature and severity of injuries sustained in road accidents.
Because the whole issue of seat belt compulsion and its effects has in the past been such an emotive one, we also wished to have all the statistical evidence carefully scrutinised by totally independent experts. Two eminent statisticians, Professors Durbin and Harvey of
46
the London School of Economics, undertook this task and their report was included as a separate, and a very substantial, annex to the department's own report. These two reports, together with a number of additional studies carried out inside and outside Government over the three-year trial period, have examined the effect of seat belt wearing from virtually every possible angle. However, I believe that the two primary issues to which your Lordships will wish to address yourselves today are these. First, have motorists been wearing their seat belts in compliance with the law? Secondly, has the law had a measurable effect on the casualty figure; and, if so, what has this effect been?
The answer to the first question is very straightforward indeed. Up to the end of 1982, when seat belt wearing was voluntary, the percentage of drivers and front seat passengers wearing seat belts never rose above 40 per cent. Immediately the law came into effect the wearing rate rose to around 95 per cent., and it has stayed there ever since. These figures speak for themselves. There was originally some concern that the legislation might prove difficult to enforce and strain relations between motorists and the police. In the event nothing could have been further from the truth. The public have accepted seat belt wearing without qualm and as a result the legislation has been almost entirely self-enforcing.
Turning to the second issue, can we say—against the background of such unanimous compliance with the law—that seat belt wearing has had a beneficial effect on road casualties, as supporters of the legislation consistently argued? I believe we can. Since seat belt wearing became law, there has been a substantial net reduction in road casulaties—on the most pessimistic assumptions, an annual saving of 200 deaths and 7,000 serious injuries. There has been a significant reduction in the demands which road accidents place on our medical services. Studies indicated that car occupant accident victims arriving at hospital for treatment have droppped by 15 per cent. and the admission of victims to hospital wards by 25 per cent. There has been a sharp decline in brain and lung injuries and facial wounds suffered by front seat car occupants.
There is a great deal more that I could say but once again I think the evidence to which I have referred largely speaks for itself. The massive increase in seat belt wearing that has occurred since the law came into force has had a substantial and distinctly favourable effect on casualty trends and on the severity of injuries sustained in accidents.
In examining casualty trends we looked closely at the suggestion that, notwithstanding the benefits for front seat car occupants, seat belt wearing has had an adverse effect on road users outside the scope of the legislation—car rear seat passengers, pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motorcylists. I know it is claimed in some quarters that seat belt wearing has encouraged motorists to drive more aggressively and with less care, thereby putting vulnerable road users, and indeed unrestrained rear seat passengers, at greater risk than before.
Those advancing this theory point to two particular aspects of the casualty trends over the period since seat belt wearing became law: first, the increase in

47
casualities among rear seat passengers; secondly, the increase in pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed and seriously injured by a car or light van—and that against the background of a decline in pedestrians and cyclists killed and seriously injured in other circumstances. Any increase in casualties must naturally be a matter for concern. But the key question we must address today is whether the increases to which I have referred can reasonably be linked in any way with the wearing of seat belts. The department has examined this possibility very carefully. So too have the independent assessors, in some considerable detail. In the event, no material evidence has emerged to sustantiate an association between seat belt wearing and such casualty increases as have taken place. The indications are that the increases are more likely to be the consequence of other factors, such as a change in the distribution of car passengers between front and rear seats, and the long-term trend in the pedestrian casualty rate.
The outcome of this assessment is entirely consistent with earlier studies, carried out in this country and abroad, which have looked at the theory that the wearing of a seat belt encourages more aggressive driving and greater risk-taking. Despite the attention given to the theory by the press and by groups directly concerned with vulnerable road users, the fact is that it remains unsupported by any substantive evidence.
I believe we are entitled to conclude, in the light of three years' experience, that the seat belt law has made a very real contribution to road safety in this country. What was already a strong possibility, on the evidence of research conducted round the world, has become a virtual certainty—the wearing of a seat belt reduces considerably the chances of being killed or seriously injured in the event of a road accident.
The Government's view is that, given the results we have seen over the last three years, it must be right to allow the seat belt law to continue indefinitely. I well recognise that some people, including some Members of your Lordships' House, still hold to the view that a measure of this kind constitutes an unreasonable infringement of individual liberty. The present Government naturally take this argument very seriously. However, in the light of all the evidence we now have—the minimum 200 deaths and 7,000 serious injuries prevented each year; the substantially reduced burden which road accidents now place on the health services; and indeed the fact that the law has been accepted so readily by the motoring public—we believe that to allow the measure to lapse at this stage would not, on balance, be a sensible decision. The small loss of personal freedom it involves is surely more than outweighed by the substantial benefits which the use of a seat belt is now quite clearly seen to confer.
Our firm recommendation is that the House should keep faith with the 95 per cent. of motorists for whom seat belt wearing is already a fact of everyday life. I commend the Motion to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the continuation in force of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 [S.I. 1982 No. 1203] be approved.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
5.34 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it would be very simple for me to say that I agree with everything that the noble Earl has said in introducing this order and then sit down. Although it is quite true that I do agree with everything he said, I think that it behoves me, on behalf of the Opposition, to say a few words. It is good that we are discussing this matter so early in European Safety Year 1986. I am glad that noble Lords are discussing the matter on this occasion. Like the noble Earl, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, whose amendment it was to the Transport Bill, which we debated in 1981, which brought about this legislation. I am certain that we shall make the order a permanent feature of our road safety law this afternoon, and it will be a permanent tribute to the noble Lord's legislative ability in this particular matter.
I would remind noble Lords that the amendment was carried by a substantial majority in your Lordships' House; it was approved by 132 votes to 92. It was carried on a free vote both by the Opposition and the Government. I was privileged to have the opportunity to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in his amendment. I can recall that the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was very good in putting both sides of the case, although he personally came down in favour of the amendment, which brought about the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
The noble Earl has referred to the report of the Department of Transport on this matter, which was published only recently, in October 1985. I hope that as I have done, noble Lords have read it very carefully. As the noble Earl said, it is based on three surveys: the monitoring programme by the department, the analysis of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, and the work of these two independent assessors. As the noble Earl has done, I should like to pay tribute to the section of the report by the assessors which covers no fewer than 55 pages, excluding their detailed appendices. Not being a mathematician, I shall not claim that I understood the appendices, but I did understand the 55 pages of their report.
Like the noble Earl, I should like to pay tribute to the fact that motorists have accepted this law. Many noble Lords would not have expected a figure of 95 per cent. for the wearing of seat belts to be the position so long after the introduction of the new law. Apart from the department, the AA and the GLC have conducted their own independent surveys on seat belt wearing, and as recently as last November the AA came up with the same figure—I think that its figure was 94 per cent.—based on its analysis of monitoring.
As the noble Earl said, the important point is whether or not the compulsory wearing of seat belts has been successful. I know there will be some who say that, after certain compensatory factors and certain allowances, the saving of 200 lives is minimal compared with some of the claims that were made when we considered this law. However, that figure of 200 is an assessment after making all sorts of allowances. In addition, there is the figure of 7,000 serious injuries per annum that have been prevented. I was about to say that serious injuries are as important as deaths, but that would be a foolish statement to make. We must not overlook the fact that some of

49
these serious injuries could have been for life, and no fewer than 7,000 people have been saved from suffering serious injury each year. Any legislation which secures that sort of result must surely deserve renewal.
The noble Earl referred to the position in hospitals. I shall not weary the House by going through all the statistics again. However, I can recall noble Lords who are more conversant with the position in hospitals than I am graphically telling the House of the sad circumstances which they had encountered in hospitals when dealing with road accident cases. The figures cannot be denied. The TRRL digest states that both the belted status and the seating position were known for about 85 per cent. of the accident patients who came into the hospitals which were the subject of this study. That gives us a sound foundation for the facts which are brought out in the conclusions of this study.
Dr. William Rutherford has communicated with a number of noble Lords. He has written me a letter in which he gives additional figures to those quoted by the noble Earl. He mentions that severe eye injuries have been reduced by no less than 82 per cent. and many other injuries by as much as 50 per cent. These are figures that we cannot put on one side.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) estimates—this is an important point which must be considered when we discuss the question of individual freedom—that the economic saving to the community as a result of the seat belt law has been no less than £130 million.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment on this point? On the question of the overall saving to the health service, to what extent do we have to weigh on the other side the likely consequence that the more we go down the road of this type of legislation, and if it is successful in ensuring that people live to a longer age, the costs of that to the community are liable to be far greater?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I hope that any law that is passed will enable me to live beyond my present age of 71; and I shall not regard that as a dismal piece of legislation. Obviously the saving to the National Health Service is important to us, and the saving to the community is important to us, but they are not the main factors. The main factor is the saving of human suffering, and that is what this seat belt legislation has secured.
What are the arguments against continuation likely to be? There is the argument for freedom; that if I want to drive around, and I risk getting killed, that is my responsibility. But it is the responsibility of the National Health Service; it is the responsibility of the police service; it is the responsibility of everyone else who has to deal with road accidents, and that is something which again we cannot set on one side.
I read carefully, as did other noble Lords, the sections in the department's report and the assessors' report on the suggestion of increased casualties among rear seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists, and what has been called the risk compensation theory which has arisen. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who was the president of RoSPA at the time he
50
introduced his amendment, will have something to say about RoSPA, but I should like to draw attention to one statement in the communication sent out by RoSPA.
"If this theory"—
that is, the risk compensation theory—
"stood up to scrutiny RoSPA could not possibly support legislation which aids one group—car occupants—to the detriment of others".
That is something which I at least would accept, along with other noble Lords.
RoSPA emphasises that this theory has failed to stand up to scrutiny by the Government's Transport and Road Research Laboratory, independent researchers, and the World Health Organisation. The independent assessors have said that they can see nothing whatever in this theory.
Dr. William Rutherford, who assisted in the study of the hospital patients coming in as a result of road accidents, referred to his attendance in November last at a working party of OECD countries held in Washington, where experts examined the effectiveness of seat belt legislation in some 30 legislative areas. He reports that in only one country was there no resulting improvement, and that on the other hand Australia, West Germany and the United Kingdom were accepted as the countries with the largest effect from seat belt wearing and the greatest reduction of casualties. Dr. Rutherford also states that the risk compensation theory was also considered, and that not one of the experts present believed that there was any evidence to support that theory.
The list of organisations which support the continuation of seat belt wearing and the purpose behind this order is extensive. It includes the Association of Chief Police Officers and both the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. Perhaps I may draw attention to the conclusion of the AA. It says:
"The Automobile Association has no doubts that the overwhelming factual evidence of reductions in car driver and passenger fatalities and serious injury brought about by compulsory seat belt wearing justifies not only the renewal of the regulations but their permanent retention".
That is the point of the order. Therefore, from this Dispatch Box I give full support to the order. I hope it will not be divided upon, but if it is I shall recommend all my noble friends and all noble Lords in this House to support the order.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may also begin by noting that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, must at the end of today be a happy man, having started this process. I am sure that by the end of this evening he will see it completed. One should also congratulate the right honourable lady, Mrs. Chalker, on this her final act in the Ministry of Transport, as she has moved on to other things. It is probably fair to say that many of us regret her passing from the Ministry of Transport. With the exception of persons here present, she is one of the more enlightened members of that department. If this is something that she can have in her curriculum vitae for a long time to come, then she is to be congratulated for putting this forward.

51
Support for this principle has been given by your Lordships both in relation to the Nugent amendment and also when the temporary order was brought into effect less than three years ago. The principle has been accepted by your Lordships subject only to the possibility of evidence being brought forward to suggest that that principle was incorrect. Therefore it is surely only possible for your Lordships to change your minds if you believe that the balance of evidence is such that seat belts should not be made compulsory. Clearly, from what we have heard, already the balance of evidence is in favour of the retention of compulsory seat belts.
I understand the objections. I understand the objections of those who oppose this type of legislation as a matter of libertarian principle. But I must say that it seems to me that that sort of argument went out in the last century when Liberals agonised over whether or not there should be compulsory education. We managed to work our way through that one, and once we had overcome that hurdle compulsory seat belts are a much easier problem to get round. The question is whether the state has the right to safeguard people from their own follies. I think that when the state itself is having to pay part of the price then clearly it has that right and indeed that duty.
As has been said already, there is the increase in cyclists' accidents and in pedestrian accidents which has been alleged by some of the opponents of the order. That has already been dealt with in some detail by both the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Even if that argument were true, which I beg leave to doubt, we ought to deal with it in different ways. For instance, my noble friend Lord Tanlaw has many times from these Benches called upon the Government to improve cycle tracks and to make provision for cyclists to move about, particularly within our cities, in conditions of greater safety.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as a former cyclist—although in his early days he might have objected to separate cycle tracks—has now come round to the view that they are essential, and that if people are going to travel on cycles they ought to do so in conditions which are far better than driving on the main roads of our cities. The pedestrian statistics may cause worry, and they may need to be investigated further, but at the end of the day if the problem is that motorists are driving too fast then one should tackle that problem and not put at risk those people who are sitting in the front seats of cars in order to save pedestrian lives.
There is the argument about people who are caught in motor cars which catch fire, and the difficulty of escaping from them. Here the Government might look at two possibilities. First, there is the question of standardisation of the release mechanism for seat belts. I know that this is not altogether easy, and I know that the Government may say that it is required now that there should be a button which is coloured red in a prominent position; but it is the ability to be able to feel for that button rather than to see it in a crisis that is important. If there were some way of standardising the position and the mechanism of the release button, that might assist to deal with this problem.
52
I think also that the standardisation of door handles would be a useful step forward. On a number of occasions, even when there has not been an emergency, I have had great difficulty in getting out of other people's motor cars when the door handle is hidden under an arm rest or is tucked away somewhere behind my left hip. I believe that those kinds of steps might overcome this difficulty.
May I ask the Government when they intend to proceed on the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts? There is what is coming to be known as the mother-in-law syndrome; that is to say, people being killed by their mother-in-law flying through from the back seat when the car stops. I say that rather flippantly, but it is not a matter for hilarity at all. On a number of occasions in accidents, unrestrained rear seat passengers have been thrown forward and have caused serious injury or death to the front seat passengers.
I cannot add anything further to what the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have said, save that this order has warm support from these Benches. Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I hope it will not go to a Division, but if it does I shall advise my colleagues to support the Government.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I start, like other speakers, by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on pioneering this important piece of legislation. I support the Motion to approve the continuation of the wearing of seat belts.
I should be glad if the Minister could use his influence to encourage the standardisation of seat belts, not only in this country but overseas, so as to make them more adaptable and, as a result, more comfortable. When I raised this point on the introduction of this Bill some years ago I was told that to do so would be too expensive. Nevertheless, I still feel that there is a need not only to make it easier to put seat belts on, especially in the dark, but, even more important, to make it easier to release them in the event of an accident when the driver and the passenger are both trapped. Could not some sort of quick release be considered? If we are to have rear seat belts could we not from the start have standardisation?
Perhaps I should declare an interest as I was trapped by a seat belt in an aeroplane which crashed. I should not be here taking up a little of your Lordships' time if the aeroplane had burst into flames.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am happy to say a brief word on this order. I start by thanking noble Lords very much for their much too generous tributes to me for initiating the last campaign and the amendment. Here I should especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for the stalwart support which he gave me throughout, leading from the Front Bench opposite. The fact is that we were divided throughout the House and many of my fiercest opponents were my noble friends behind me. However, I am glad to say that most of those who were fighting me then have either moved on or are now happy to accept the position we have reached.

53
I warmly thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their generous tributes to me. After the lucid introduction by my noble friend Lord Caithness and his most convincing exposition of the case, it is not necessary for me to go into any detail. It struck me that when we took the decision four years ago we made it, as my noble friend said, in the light of theory and other people's experience. We had seen compulsory seat belts introduced in other countries and the great saving of life and limb which followed. But that did not convince many noble Lords here, and had not done for years. The "liberty of the subject" argument was immensely strong. After all, parliamentarians, especially those of us who have been in the other place, elected by the votes of the people, are very well aware that if we did not fight for the liberty of the subject we should not have a Parliament at all. My sympathies are very much with those who fight against compulsory orders, but in this case I felt we had a good argument which should be made a special case. Fortunately, after some very tense debates we carried the day, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us, by some 131 votes to 90. So the matter went back to the Commons and on the Floor of the House, where I was sure there would be a majority—despite the cunning arrangement, to which the two Whips between them agreed, to put it on the night before the Royal Wedding in the hope that the Members would not be there—the majority carried the day and it became law.
This time it is easy because we have had our own experience, as noble Lords have said, in the last three years. The most satisfactory aspect has been the raising of the level of wearing belts from 40 per cent. to 95 per cent. This is tremendous and clearly there were no enforcement problems. It is evident that our people have recognised this. When they were told it was the law they put on the belt and discovered that it is no trouble. When one gets into a car one fixes the belt quite instinctively and it is no trouble at all. People have recognised that it is a useful measure simply to protect themselves.
Now we know the immediate benefits that have occurred. As has already been said, some minimum of 200 lives per annum are saved, with this enormous figure mentioned, of 7,000 serious injuries. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, most of these injuries are to the head and face. They are terrible injuries. My noble friend on the Back Bench made the point that if we all live longer this will prove even more expensive to the National Health Service. Most of the serious injuries are injuries and handicaps for life, and many of them involve such serious brain damage that the individual has no life left and becomes an enormous permanent cost to the whole community.
I do not think there is much in that argument. We have had this wonderful result, and we also know that there is a saving of some 130 million a year on the hospital bill as a result of fewer injuries from accidents.
Kind tributes have been paid to me. In the 35 years that I have been in the Palace of Westminster, either here or down the corridor, I have taken part in many campaigns. I have never taken part in any campaign which has ended so successfully, which has given such tremendous immediate benefit to humanity. Who could ask for more? I am tremendously grateful to all
54
those who have helped me, noble Lords on all sides here, honourable Members in another place, people both inside and outside the House. It was a campaign which concluded in 1981, but it had been going on for years before. I wish to thank especially my friends RoSPA who have played such an important part. I should like to say that it has been a happy experience for me, and I feel that all those who have taken part have the right to be just as happy as I am.
There are two brief points with which I should like to conclude. One is on the Adams' theory. This has been very carefully examined by this admirable report. I thank my noble friend for this report which is really a magnificent one. I applaud the wisdom of calling in these two independent professors from the London School of Economics to make the report. It confirms the complete independence of the analysis of the material. This makes it perfectly clear that there really is no statistical basis for Dr. Adams' argument, although it is an interesting idea and obviously should be watched. But the point was very effectively made, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that RoSPA made the statement that they certainly could not support any road safety measure which discriminated in favour of one section of the community rather than another. I hope that noble Lords who still do not feel all that happy with compulsory seat belts will recognise that this important idea has been very seriously looked at and found not to have statistical weight in it.
The other brief point that I should like to make is the same point as that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. That concerns the standardisation of seat belt fittings. The report tells us that considerable improvements in design have been made with seat belts in the last few years and continue to be made. This is most welcome news, but it is all the more important that this question of standardisation, both of location and operation of the fixing, should be watched so that it is absolutely certain. This is most important both for the safety of the driver and the passenger when they get in and, particularly in an emergency, when they want to get out. So I ask my noble friend whether he will have this particular point watched very carefully. I have great pleasure in giving this order my firm support.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether, if 95 per cent. of people use their seat belts, I may ask what happens to the other 5 per cent? Have there been any charges made by the police?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Yes, my Lords. There have been a few, as this admirable report tells us. I think that there were 8,000 in the first year. In the main, it is a very remarkable achievement to get a 95 per cent. enforcement rate. We can conceive of a good many other laws for which we would like to have similar success. It really is negligible in the total content.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, despite the habitually mollifying words of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, he will not, I know, expect me to agree with

55
very much of what he has said. Considering that the other place was only able to debate this important measure shortly before midnight a week ago for less than an hour and a half, at a time when attendance was understandably extremely thin after a hard, exhausting day debating, first, the Westland affair and then the Public Order Bill, it is fortunate that this House can give the matter the attention it deserves. It is particularly important that we should do so given public concern over the decision. A recent opinion poll shows that 62 per cent. of the population oppose compulsion, with only 32 per cent. supporting it.
Interestingly, the same poll revealed that in the absence of compulsion, 56 per cent. of motorists would still wear their seat belts on a voluntary basis while only 37 per cent. would decline to do so—which demonstrates perhaps that what the British people object to is not so much seat belts themselves as being dicated to, in their private lives, by the gentlemen in Whitehall or, perhaps one should say, the nanny in Whitehall.
In the Sunday Telegraph of December 1st, the widely read and much respected columnist, Mary Kenny, wrote about what the Americans, it appears, have dubbed "health fascism"—not my phrase, nor Miss Kenny's, but a phrase used in America. She describes health fascism as the totalitarianism concept that the state, like some bossy nanny, should manipulate individual citizens' private behaviour. She was referring not to seat belt compulsion but to the virulent anti-smoking campaign being carried on on both sides of the Atlantic. But the principle is the same, the only difference being that smoking is not yet, luckily, a criminal offence; although, according to the Government's own figures produced by the DHSS and the Department of Transport respectively, 500 times as many people die annually from cigarette smoking as died from driving without seat belts.
I mention this only to point out the inconsistencies and illogicalities in this whole business. The noble Earl the Minister has told us of the reductions in casualties among car drivers and passengers since 31st January 1983. We acknowledge this, although of course the reductions are very much less than were originally forecast when this whole legislation was being debated. The original estimate was 1,000 lives a year being saved. That was later reduced to 800 and then to 700. What we have now is very much less than that. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, speaking for the Government on 30th July 1982, told the House (in col. 487) that the Government believe that the law will reduce the chances of death and injury by 50 per cent. when an accident occurs. This has not happened either; unless accidents themselves have risen by a substantial amount which, of course, is possible in view of the theory which I am going to come to later.
Although I intend to challenge the noble Earl's interpretation of the figures, let me say straight away that nobody in Parliament has ever denied, so far as I know, that if more drivers and passengers were to wear seat belts, then fewer of them would, on balance, be fatally or seriously injured in most types of collision, other things being equal. The distinguished Front-Benchers in both Houses who at various times have voted against compulsion were well aware of this, it
56
goes without saying. One thinks of Mr. Nigel Lawson, Sir Keith Joseph, Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. Norman Tebbit as well as a former Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party and two former Leaders of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, if I may emphasise this to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff; and, of course, the former Labour Chief Whip who, unhappily, has just been de-selected in Bristol South, together with others now in your Lordships' House, such as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon. As highly intelligent men, they were all well aware that compulsion would undoubtedly save the lives of some motorists. Nevertheless, it is clear that they must have considered that the various practical and moral objections outweighed the probable benefits.
Unhappily, a vast philosophical gulf appears to separate the two sides on this issue. On the one hand, there are those who have adopted what one might (I think without impoliteness) term the Swedish attitude—an attitude which I concede is in the ascendant at the moment. People who take this view believe in all sincerity that those in positions of influence and authority have not only the right but the duty to do good to their fellow adults—against their will, if need be—and to utilise the criminal law to prevent their fellow adults from taking unnecessary risks with their health and safety; or, rather, some aspects of health and safety, because there are many anomalies and inconsistencies in their attitudes. One wonders what they feel now about the 1961 Suicide Act and the 1967 Sexual Offences Act.
On the other hand, there are those who retain what I like to think of, perhaps optimistically, as the traditional British attitude, roughly echoing the philosphy of John Stuart Mill, although perhaps the attitude is more instinctive than cerebral, and who consider it insulting and unthinkable to use the criminal law to override their fellow adults' judgment on matters concerning their personal health and safety, however strongly we may feel about their drinking too much, smoking too many cigarettes, declining to have their children vaccinated against whooping cough (despite the urgent protestations of the medical profession), refusing to have the dangerously worn flex on their electrical implements replaced and indulging in dangerous sports in poor weather conditions without adequate preparation. Despite all this, it would not occur to us to interfere in their lives, however much one feels they are taking the wrong course of action. (This is not to say that one would rule out fiscal penalties if their behaviour imposed burdens on their fellow taxpayers.) The gap, therefore, as I said, is a very wide one.
However, there is a different moral aspect upon which I would hope that both sides might find common ground. I would hope that we all would agree on the absolute necessity of examining provisional legislation extremely carefully to see whether it has produced unfortunate and wholly unintended adverse side effects. To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, never denied during our debates in 1981 that some people would die as a direct result of being compelled to wear seat belts, though he contended that the numbers would be extremely small. The noble

57
Baroness, Lady Birk, who I concede is paradoxically in favour of compulsion, had earlier told the House that her life was saved specifically because she was not wearing a seat belt, when the front of the car in which she was travelling was squashed completely flat and she had been thrown out safely onto the the grass verge. There are several similar cases on record.
In France recently it has been found that deaths from broken necks as a result of "whip lash" injuries have risen by 267 per cent. following the introduction of seat belt compulsion in that country. Nor must one forget the unfortunate persons trapped in their blazing or submerged cars by seat belts they could not release despite having been fully conscious, as confirmed by coroner's inquests and not merely by press reports. One thinks of the 25-year-old Norfolk woman whose car ran into a dyke in June 1983, and who drowned. There was a 22-year-old nurse and her 21-year-old friend who died through being trapped by their seat belts when their car ran into the River Wey near Weybridge in October 1984; the back seat pasengers managed to swim to safety. There was the I 9-year-old Wolverhampton man who died from burns in Chepstow in April 1984. his unreleasable belt having actually burned right through. His three passengers managed to escape. In what the press described as Britain's worst motorway accident on the 21st October last year, witnesses recalled seeing a man and a woman screaming as they tried to release their seat belts in a blazing car, without success. These people may not be very numerous in relation to the total but I think your Lordships would agree that their cases are poignant nevertheless.
So far we have been considering car and van drivers and their passengers, who after all account for less than 40 per cent. of those killed and less than 45 per cent. of those injured on our roads. What about motor cyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, who account for no less than 56·per cent. of deaths and over 48 per cent. of injuries? Some 6.3 per cent. more pedestrians and 18.4 per cent. more cyclists were killed or seriously injured by cars or vans in the period of two years since compulsion than in the two years preceding compulsion. Against this, 10.7 per cent. fewer pedestrians and only 0.5 per cent. more cyclists were killed or seriously injured by vehicles in which the wearing of seat belts was not compulsory.
Professor Durbin and Professor Harvey of the London School of Economics, who have been referred to by by the noble Earl and who were appointed by the Government as independent assessors, reported that since compulsion there has been an increase of 27 per cent. in rear seat passenger deaths, 14 per cent. in pedestrian deaths and no less than 40 per cent. in pedal cyclists' deaths over what prevailing trends would have suggested. The two professors suggested that although no link could be at present proven, there was none the less the possibility of some change in driving behaviour by the drivers of some cars and light goods vehicles after the introduction of the seat belt law.
On a different occasion Professor Harvey ascribed the rise in pedestrian deaths as "worrying and inexplicable". Some of us did not find it in any way inexplicable. May I briefly quote to your Lordships something which I wrote in the Motor? I forecast that if seat belt wearing became compulsory the main
58
sufferers would be motor cyclists, cyclists and, above all, pedestrians. That appeared in the Motor published on 2nd November 1977. I wrote something published elsewhere in a similar vein about 18 months previously: in other words, about 10 years ago.
An internal Department of Transport report of April 1981 took much the same view. This report was quite disgracefully suppressed, and I should like to hear the reason for that from the noble Earl, because I have no doubt it would have been an embarrassing bombshell had it appeared at the time the original seat belt legislation was going through. But it was deliberately suppressed, although, happily, some years later it was leaked to the New Scientist. No action was taken against the civil servant responsible, no doubt because the government do not wish the report to obtain widespread currency.
This internal report forecast that following compulsion deaths among other road users could climb by about 150 per annum and that injuries to pedestrians and other road users might rise by between 11 and 13 per cent. Actually this secret forecast seems to have been remarkably accurate, bearing in mind that unfortunately there has been no monitoring of motor cycle deaths caused by belted motorists.
In the 24 months following compulsion deaths among car and van drivers and front seat passengers fell by 723, compared with the preceding 24 months. Against this, deaths among rear seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists killed by belted drivers rose by fully 275—a ratio of just over three to eight: in other words, for every eight drivers whose lives have been saved just over three rear seat passengers, pedestrians and pedal cyclists have lost their lives. This takes no account of motor cyclists killed by drivers wearing belts.
But worse is to come. For some inexplicable reason the Department of Transport ascribes the entire saving of driver and front seat passenger lives since February 1983 to seat belt compulsion. No credit whatsoever is given to the much stricter enforcement of existing drink and driving laws—prosecutions were up by almost 31 per cent. in 1983—nor to the introduction of the evidential breath test during the same year. Reduction in drunken drivers' deaths was 34.8 per cent. between 1982 and 1984, whereas deaths among sober drivers fell by only 5.5 per cent. I apologise for telling your Lordships on the 12th December last that the fall was slightly smaller, at 4.4 per cent.; but in view of the fact that this excellent publication of the noble Earl's department contains at least three mathematical errors, I hope that I may be forgiven.
Incidentally, in 1983 in the report entitled Road Accidents in Great Britain 1983, it was suggested by the department that the new measures on drinking and driving could also have had a beneficial effect. It is curious that, for some reason, this was not repeated in their 1984 report. If therefore only half the saving of motorists' deaths is attributable to less drink and driving rather than to the seat belt law, we have a situation where the cons almost outweight the pros, even if one assumes (as I certainly cannot) that there is no immorality in deciding the matter by a simple counting of heads. Incidentally, The Lancet—hardly a journal your Lordships would expect to be biased

59
against compulsion—agrees to some extent with Dr. John Adams, in its issued dated 11th February this year, on the need to take full account of legislation on drinking and driving. Hence, by implication, it disagrees with the Department of Transport in its interpretation of the statistics. The Lancet goes on to say that there will be regret that the evidence on deaths is not more one-sided and there will be disappointment that the measure has fallen short of its promise. I feel this is a straw in the wind.
Why have more pedestrians and cyclists been killed since compulsion? One must look both to physical and psychological causes and to combinations of the two. As an illustration of the latter, let me highlight a speech given in March 1983 to an RAC conference on road safety by an eminent psychologist, in which he revealed that 28 per cent. of drivers doze off on journeys of three hours or more, and that 35 per cent. of fatal accidents involved a driver falling partially or wholly asleep. I do not suppose that these figures appear in official statistics, simply because people are highly reluctant to admit to police that they may have fallen asleep, for fear of losing their licence—understandably so. I fear that seat belts may accentuate this tendency, either by inducing complacency or by restricting deep breathing or the blood circulation, however slightly. A difference of only 2 or 3 per cent. could have a positive adverse effect.
Purely physical causes include cases where a driver is prevented from leaning forward at intersections or T-junctions, to see whether a cyclist or a motorcyclist is coming, and is stopped from doing so by the locking of the inertia reel. Your Lordships will know how this occurs quite frequently, when one is least expecting it. There are also difficulties that many people have with reversing. In theory, one is permitted to remove one's seat belt while engaged in a reversing manoeuvre. But in practice, as a great many people tell me, they cannot be bothered to do it, with the result that instead of turning round 180 degrees to see where they are going, they turn round between 45 and 90 degrees only, sometimes with dangerous results.
Purely psychological causes include the risk/compensation theory of Dr. Adams, which has been so widely misinterpreted. It is not a question—or only very rarely—of a belted motorist consciously putting his foot down and driving 10 or 20 mph faster. That does not happen very often. It is much more a question of him "dropping his guard", so to speak, at quite normal driving speeds, the feeling of extra security sub-consciously contributing to inattentiveness.
The same phenomenon can he observed in many other spheres of human activity, especially sporting ones. Just look, my Lords, at the way American footballers go into each other at full tilt in a way which rugby footballers, devoid of all the protective padding, would never dare do. One item of information that reinforces this theory is the report by the General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, that motorists' accidental damage claims have risen by 20 per cent. since compulsion.
It is significant that a number of those who are either in the neutral camp or in the pro-compulsion camp now admit that the risk/compensation theory cannot
60
necessarily be written off. The Lancet has already been mentioned. Professor Durbin and Professor Harvey seem to have indicated qualified acceptance. Scott and Willis, in a Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report produced in 1985, admit that while their results do not support risk/compensation, neither do they permit the suggestion to be entirely refuted.
Where does this leave us? What most certainly cannot be accepted, in my view, is the Department of Transport's contention in paragraph 3.24 of their report on Road Accidents Great Britain 1983, that,
"even if drivers are driving more dangerously as a result of seat belt wearing, it is already clear that casualty savings among car and van occupants far outweigh any increases in casualties among other road users".
This may well be so, but it is a very immoral argument. Those who choose to drive without seat belts are taking a statistically small, but fully conscious, risk with their own safety. If by some mischance they die in consequence, it is tantamount to suicide.
The same cannot be said of those trapped unwillingly by their belts in a blazing or submerged car, nor of the much greater number of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists who are now at greater risk of death or injury. If the non-seat belt wearer's death is the equivalent of suicide, the deaths of pedestrians, cyclists and others is the equivalent of manslaughter. There is no other comparison that one can make.
You cannot resolve this matter by simple head counting. You cannot, in all conscience, maintain—and I am sure that the right reverend Prelate would agree with me on this—that 150 extra cases of manslaughter per annum is a price worth paying, if 200, 250 or even 500 cases of suicide are thereby avoided. For this reason, I hope that noble Lords will oppose this Motion in the Division Lobby.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, I am fully aware that, in all courtesy, I should make some definite reply to my noble friend Lord Monson, particularly after that very detailed, very well thought out and delightful speech that he has just made. But if your Lordships look at the list of speakers, you will realise that I am in a very invidious position. I am, as it were, like a simple nut between the two very strong jaws of a rather potent nutcracker, because after I have said my few words I am to be followed by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who holds very similar views to those of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
I do not intend to try to deal in any detail with the statements that we have just heard, although I should be most interested to hear the sources of some of the statistics, because there are some that I at any rate have not seen. However, I think I can in all fairness say to both of them—one who has spoken and one who has not spoken—that there seems to be some indication that, as is so often the case, that wonderful healer, the healer of time, will solve the difficulties between us without much more trouble.
Those difficulties, as we have heard very amply in the last few minutes, really rest on the facts of compulsion and the consequent lack of individual freedom. Mention has been made several times already of the extraordinary and very pleasing fact that

61
one of the results of this three-year experiment has been the extraordinary acceptance of the law. The figure rose from 40 per cent. to 90 or 95 per cent. and it has not changed since. This is a quite remarkable fact. If you accept this fact, which has happened in three years—and it seems that the very definite high level has been maintained—then, if we give it another two or three years so that it has become an automatic reflex, that will remove the necessity for any compulsion and we shall therefore be quite happy.
I just want to say a very few words in support of the noble Lord the Minister, as president of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. This body has been mentioned before in these debates and, as your Lordships will probably remember, it was one of the first protagonists of compulsory seat belt wearing. Also, after our last debate four years ago, it was made responsible for the guidelines on exemptions from the regulations. I note in passing that those exemptions have been relatively very few in number and most of them have been for relatively short periods of time. So it does not seem that from that angle we have got into any trouble. The commission has therefore in the last three years watched very interestedly and very carefully what has been happening. As we have heard already—and I do not intend to go into all these points again—it has been a very satisfactory and steady progress and, although the Question was perhaps rather rushed in the other place a week or two ago, it was almost unopposed.
I have been interested—as I expect has every other noble Lord in the House—in the mass of statements from various bodies, practically all of which support the Motion and want to go on with seat belt wearing. One can understand that a lot of these bodies would feel in that way—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the British Medical Association and the Automobile Association. Obviously they are going to support it. But I have noticed—and your Lordships have probably done the same—one or two other papers which intrigued me quite a lot.
One body, which has been mentioned tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is the Casualty Surgeons Association. They are the people who arc in the firing line and who really know what is happening. If they support the Motion—and they support it very strongly—it would be very wrong for us to consider doing anything else. Another body which I want to mention is an expression of my ignorance, because I did not know very much about the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, of which my noble friend Lord Nugent is at present chairman. If that body considers that this is all very much on the positive side it is surely a great support to us. Its simple summary of the position was that this has been a highly successful experiment.
It is quite obvious from what little we have heard already that we are getting from the stage of statistics to the stage of facts. Most of us here know what statistics can do if we want them to. Nearly all the bodies which have considered the problem and have investigated it and experimented with it have come to an extraordinary consensus of opinion. It is quite amazing that the figures one gets are almost the same, whoever produces them. I refer to the 200 to 250 lives
62
that are saved each year and to the 7,000 or so serious injuries that are prevented. All the bodies say very much the same thing, which is quite interesting.
Those significant figures do not tell us what enormous benefit accrues on the human side in terms of preventing human suffering, family upset and children being left alone. Those factors do not come into the figures at all but they are by far the most important part of the balance sheet. It is right that we should consider the effect on the National Health Service. The Casualty Surgeons Association mentions that there have been anything up to 25 per cent. fewer admissions since seat belts came in. That is an enormous number and represents a great saving in the time of medical and surgical personnel. One cannot neglect the figure, however much one may query it, of £130 million. Whether it is right or wrong or less or more, it is still a significant figure. One way or another, everything seems to point to the fact that this has been a good experiment.
We have heard a good deal this evening about risk compensation. I find that an extraordinarily odd term. I should be awfully interested to know how many Members of this noble House have felt so much happier and so much safer that they could drive much more joyously and buzz along and knock everybody over. I have never had anything like that feeling. I have never felt it. It is an amazing thought. I think the idea has been pretty well disproved. Everybody has had a go at it, with the net result that it has practically nil support even among independent bodies. The WHO has had a go at it and simply cannot find a connection. I do not think we should bother about risk compensation, and I hope that no noble Lord gets it.
So much has been said already that I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time. One more thought crosses my mind with regard to risk compensation. For more than two years the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention has been working closely with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on a study of perception in driving, a very difficult subject on which it has not yet produced a report but has produced quite a number of interesting facts. This is getting quite near the idea of risk compensation. To date, it has found no connection between the wearing of seat belts and the degree of perception in different drivers in different circumstances.
I want to make just one more point to try to be courteous to my noble friend Lord Monson. My noble friend has mentioned, as he always does, blazing cars and submerged cars. Those are tragedies but they are relatively rare. Most of them are automatically fatal whether or not seat belts are worn, but I should like to put the thought in his mind that if they are not fatal and the driver is belted he will probably still be alive. Therefore he might just be able to do something for himself or be able to help somebody who is trying to do something for him. That is just a thought by the way.
I should like to say personally and on behalf of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention that I am thoroughly in favour of this Motion, and I only wish that the Motion had somewhere in it the word "permanently". This is only a continuation and not at

63
the moment a continuation in permanence, as noble Lords can see from their papers. I wish to support the Motion very actively.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, the way the debate has gone so far gives me little comfort for the point of view I wish to put forward. The only support I have is from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and from the Bench in front of me if noble Lords will permit me to lean upon it.
I do not take issue very much with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, except on the question of compulsion. I believe in seat belts intensely. I admit that they have saved many lives and prevented much injury and suffering—I admit all that—but, when it comes to belts and medical points, there is another side to balance the benefits about which the noble Lords, Lord Porritt and Lord Nugent, have spoken. Not many but some deaths by fire and by drowning do occur. It is no good anybody arguing about that because it is said in many government publications. The seat belt can be a killer under certain circumstances. I ask the question: is it morally justified for the state to compel by law certain citizens to suffer accidental death through obeying the law? Noble Lords will reply, "Think of the great benefit and think of the saving of life". I submit there is a clear difference here. In one case the belt is a preventive against further damage, against death; whereas in the other case a life is lost as a result of obedience to the law.
It is also said that seat belts have saved so many lives that one must accept that some must die so that others may live. That is a terrible doctrine and I have never heard it put forward by any Minister. On the other hand, I have not heard much sympathy extended to those who have suffered and died only because they obeyed the law. To me, state-directed death, whether it is one death or 50, is terrible. We should all regret having a law which, if obeyed, brings death to a certain number of people. I say, not many, but to me one death is enough.
I believe that the question of state responsibility has not been touched on in this debate. It was certainly not touched upon in the debate in the other place. I do not think we should avoid it. Are those responsible for the law satisfied that a stain is not left on those who have ordered compulsion? I believe that the decision should not rest with the state but with the citizen, who should make his decision himself.
We have come a long way in five years and we are now a belt-wearing nation. I do not believe that there would be any great increase in the number of casualties if we now removed the compulsion and admitted the freedom that we have denied to the citizen. The decision should be with the citizen. If I am on the losing side tonight should there be a Division, and I quite expect to be, then I shall comfort myself with the thought that in every Parliament we all become accustomed to defeat. There is not one noble Lord or noble Baroness here who is not accustomed to defeat.
This is my final appeal. These are my last wishes, and they are the last words that I intend to speak in this House. For me, in the vernacular, there ain't going to
64
be any more at all. At 88 years of age, having spent 57 consecutive years in Parliament, and being jolly deaf, it is time I kept my trap shut, which I now intend to do.
Lord Somers: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not admit that the moment one starts driving a car the world is full of compulsion? One is forced to drive on the left; one is not allowed to stop in certain places; one is not allowed to park in other places; one is not allowed to cross a double white line. There are all sorts of compulsions. If compulsion adds to safety on the road, then surely it is no bad thing.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Smith: My Lords, as a doctor and as a surgeon I am very anxious to support the Minister. I am very conscious that your Lordships will have been subjected on numerous occasions to all the arguments in favour of seat belts and all the arguments against them. I do not propose to repeat any of the old arguments. It is a very dangerous thing to put forward a new argument on an old topic, but I believe that the public have ignored one of the most important of the reasons for wearing seat belts. I doubt whether this medical reason has ever properly been described in this House. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me while I tell briefly a true story by way of illustration—and I can vouch for its truth in every particular.
In the late 1970s a collision occurred at Hyde Park Corner. A 30 year-old lady confused by the density of traffic drove her car into the side of a bus and sustained very serious injuries—the classic injuries in such cases before the seat belt legislation was passed. The car was not badly damaged, but she was thrown on to the steering wheel and suffered an appalling injury to her liver, which bled catastrophically.
In retrospect, there were three very fortunate elements in her favour. The first was that her injuries were sustained smack in front of a hospital. St. George's Hospital was still there but under notice to close from the DHSS despite all the arguments of the medical staff. The second element in the lady's favour was that the emergency consultant surgeon on duty at the hospital that day was a specialist in surgery of the liver. The third element in her favour was a little more difficult to explain. To survive, the lady in question needed successful surgery and, most of all, she needed blood transfusion on a massive scale. However, examination of her blood type showed that she belonged to a very rare blood group. One is talking about the transfusion of 30, 40, 50 or 60 pints of blood to keep that particular lady alive before and during her operation.
The blood transfusion service cannot provide blood of a very rare group in such quantities straight away. The third element in the lady's favour was, by coincidence, at work. A young girl of 20 was already in the same hospital awaiting a very serious heart operation the next morning. In preparation for that major surgery the blood fridge was full of blood that had been provided for that girl. Lo and behold!, those two patients were of the same very rare blood group.
Doctors and surgeons are interested in one thing only; that is, the recovery of the patient. Although the fridge was full of blood prepared for a different patient

65
the next day, we could not let the lady with the liver injuries die. I spoke to the cardiac surgeon on the phone and the injured motorist immediately received a transfusion of more than 50 pints of blood. She underwent successful surgery and made a good recovery. However, the next morning the girl with the cardiac complaint was still in St. George's. The cardiac consultant was there but there was no blood. The young girl's operation had to be postponed. In the interval she developed one of the complications of her complaint and was not fully fit for the operation before six weeks had passed. Fortunately, there is a happy end to this story. The young girl underwent a successful cardiac operation eventually, and she is well.
Think what is implied in that true story. The young girl admitted for a cardiac operation, as an innocent party, had her life seriously threatened by another lady who should have worn, but did not wear, her seat belt. Every patient who is admitted to hospital with a preventable injury uses up hospital resources, sometimes, very scarce resources, even including blood that can make the difference between life or death in a quite separate patient.
6.49 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, have touched on the importance of standardising the release mechanisms of seat belts. I pressed the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to do this at the time when the 1981 Transport Act was being considered in this House, and I was told that it was not desirable because it would impede improvements in design. The release mechanism of aircraft seat belts is not continually being changed, nor is it different on different makes or models of commercial aircraft—at least not on those in which I have travelled. It always seems to be the same and it has been the same for very many years, so everyone knows how to release the seat belt and can do so quickly in an emergency. I do not think that it should be beyond the ability of the manufacturers of car seat belts to emulate the manufacturers of aircraft seat belts and as soon as possible produce some good, reliable design and then keep it, so that if you travel in someone else's car or if you hire a car you know exactly what you are in for.
Only last week I was given a lift to a dinner by a noble Lord and when we reached our destination I tried for what seemed like ages to undo my seat belt. I could not do it and he had to come to my rescue. I could not help wondering what would have happened had we been in an accident and the car had caught fire. I still say that this sort of thing is not good enough and, if aircraft manufacturers can do it, then car seat belt manufacturers can do it; and, if they do not, then they should be made to do it, just as people are being made to wear their seat belts.
I must say that I was not quite clear at the beginning of this debate whether we were debating carrying on the regulations for another three years or making them permanent. I understood—I hope I am right—that we are extending them for another three years.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lady, and say, no, it is on a permanent basis. I tried to make this clear in my opening remarks, and I apologise if I did not do so.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I must say, however, that, much as I should like to give a permanent memorial to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—nothing could possibly give me greater pleasure—I am sorry that this is to be permanent this time, for the reason that it seems to me it will be very difficult to alter details in the regulations which changing circumstances or experience may make advisable. I have in mind particularly the exemptions in Regulation No. 5, which is perhaps the most difficult and controversial regulation. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what the procedure would be if it should become necessary or desirable to alter any of the regulations? If it is rather difficult and complicated, as I suspect it is, I think it is a pity if we do not carry on these regulations for another three years and scrutinise them very carefully during that period with a view to making them permanent at the end of the three years.
Finally, I wonder whether the noble Earl can give the House an assurance that making this order permanent is not just the prelude to making compulsory the wearing of seat belts in the rear seats, because there are very considerable arguments against doing that. I do not propose to go into them now but I should certainly have to oppose it very strongly were that to be the case. I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say in answer to my points, but I shall support the Motion.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, at this late stage of this debate, I shall try to be very short, two minutes or less if necessary. My main point is that a great deal has happened during the three or four years since we had our previous debate in this House. I think great credit is due here to the British public for understanding and accepting the new rules. They have done a lot, enforcing their own discipline. There could have been friction between heavy vehicles, private transport and police. There could have been considerable bandying of words, but there has been very little. If a police constable is on his feet and the cab of a heavy vehicle is right above him, it is impossible for him to see and check whether there is a seat belt in use or not.
There are prosecution statistics which we have been given in the AA memorandum and in the departmental programmes, but I shall not pursue them at this stage. Nevertheless, the figures that we have been given are not exactly the same.
My second point, which is really the second part of the first one, is the question of consistency in different police force areas. Cautions, oral or written, are given in some areas—I think we have been told differently in the big pamphlet with the yellow cover. On the other hand I have been told by a senior officer in another force that where there is a clear case then they follow up automatically with a charge.
We may need a little more discretion even at the end of the three or four years which we have been working, I think that we need a certain amount of guidance, and I hope that this will come from the two Government departments which are most interested in this subject, because we do not wish to give any cause for friction to enter and spoil the good situation which we have seen develop here.
6.56 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and useful discussion on seat belts, and I would only comment to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that though the press seemed to think that it was a foregone conclusion when last week the House of Commons decided the issue on a vote with a very large majority, I have never ceased to remind people that there is a second Chamber which does give these matters detailed and long consideration.
I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave from the Opposition Front Bench. Like him, I should like to see an increase in the use of seat belts above the figure that we have, as this is European Road Safety Year, and I was in the Hague when the Year was officially opened at the informal Council of Ministers. During his speech the noble Lord got into the discussion about the restriction of individual freedom and liberty. It was a point which was also taken up by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. We have to strike a balance between what is desirable to reduce road casualties and the amount of increased interference that the public will accept. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, supports the Government on this issue. The fact that the number of people wearing seat belts has been so consistently high, at around 95 per cent., seems to suggest that the majority of people have accepted the need for compulsion. I would hope we could all agree that reductions in casualties following compulsion are worth the small loss of freedom that is involved.
The noble Lord also referred to the immense saving in human suffering, which is unquantifiable, as did the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, and I should like to support both of them in what they said about that matter. I think this is a factor which is very often underrated.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, congratulated my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker, and I, too, should like to pay tribute to her. She spent some five years in the department and really did care for road safety. The noble Lord was concerned about drivers and front seat passengers not being thrown clear if a vehicle should catch fire or become submerged in water and they were wearing a seat belt. The department's report on the monitoring looked at the suggestion that wearing seat belts could increase the risk of being trapped inside a vehicle which catches fire or becomes submerged in water, but there is no evidence of any increase in deaths due to drowning or burning following the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Indeed, by wearing a seat belt an occupant is more likely to be conscious after an accident and therefore in a position to unfasten the belt and get out of the vehicle, which was a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. I hope that explanation goes some way to answering the queries that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, had on that point.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of the standardisation of seat belts and fittings. There is already a high degree of standardisation among seat belts and seat belt release mechanisms. All belts and their fittings already have to meet an approved British standard, as well as meeting an approved European
68
standard. I can think of nobody nicer with whom to be trapped in a car than the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, should she not be able to release her seat belt in a hurry!
All the release buttons must be coloured red and be capable of easy release. I appreciate that that means that the release mechanisms are not completely identical. However, I support my noble friend Lord Bellwin in what he said. If too great a uniformity results due to the imposition of standardisation, that could well lead to restriction of innovation in the future. My noble friend Lord Nugent also commented upon standardisation. He said that the reports show that there has been a great improvement. That is due to the fact that there has been competition and continual research into seat belts by a number of firms. I wonder whether such improvements would have been made had we had standardisation. Notwithstanding what I have said, I shall look into the matter because of the concern of so many noble Lords.
That leads me to the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts—a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. The Government have no plans at present to make the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the rear seats of cars a legal requirement. Nonetheless, the introduction of compulsory fitting should encourage people to wear rear seat belts on a more voluntary basis.
I see that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has left us. I was going to tell her about the 5 per cent. who do not wear seat belts, but I shall not as I have a number of more important answers to give, particularly to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I can inform him that in 1983 there were 6,826 prosecutions for failing to wear a seat belt. I think that he said 7,000. He is, as usual, accurate in his figures. The points that I have made on the standardisation of seat belts and rear seat belts I hope answer the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, raised.
The Adams theory, which my noble friend Lord Nugent raised, and which was also dealt with at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been rigorously examined by the department's experts and by the independent statistical assessors, Professors Durbin and Harvey. The studies have produced not a single piece of hard evidence that would substantiate the notion that wearing seat belts has encouraged more reckless driver behaviour. In so far as there have been increases in casualties among certain categories, there are no grounds for associating those with changes in driver behaviour. The explanation is much more likely to be found in other factors, such as changes in distribution of car passengers between front and rear seats and long-term changes in the pedestrian casualty rates.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that what those eminent professors say is that they cannot lend their support to the theory but nor can they rule it our entirely? There is a possibility that it may be correct.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Lord. I was just saying that it is not proven. The studies undertaken are consistent

69
with research conducted throughout the world. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave the example of the OECD seminar in Washington. We must not read too much into the risk compensation theory, although as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, says we must not discount it because there might be something in it, but nothing has been proven yet.
The noble Lord also referred to injuries caused by seat belts, and strangulation. We accept that a few types of injury, such as injury to the sternum and sprained necks, have increased due to seat belts, but overall the numbers of injuries have declined following compulsion.
I move on to the figures, which the noble Lord seemed to criticise as not being the same as those that we projected in 1981. Of course they would not be, because we were only making projections then. But the figures that I gave of the saving of 200 deaths per year, 7,000 serious injuries and, I add, 13,000 slight injuries, are the very minimum, taking all the factors, including drinking, into account. If the noble Lord re-reads the reports with the diligence with which he appears to have read them, he will notice that Professors Harvey and Durbin say that the saving in deaths could be anything between 200 and 500. We have taken the minimum figure.
The noble Lord referred to a report that he claims was suppressed by my department. The report was not suppressed: it was not published because it was based on evidence of some European countries that was out of date because we were undertaking our own studies at the time. Now that we have the results of those studies and the independent studies, speculation on what the effects might be is no longer relevant. We must look at the hard facts, and the hard facts show the advantages of wearing seat belts.
The noble Lord also referred to a fall in the number of casualties in 1983 being due to the drink and drive campaign and evidential breath-testing machines rather than to seat belt wearing. But I must point out to him that the reduction became apparent in February 1983, whereas the evidential breath-testing machines were not introduced till May, so the reduction had already taken place. I do not think that his argument is as strong as he would like to believe.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, wondered whether we were extending the regulations for a further three-year period or permanently. When I interrupted her I explained that it was on a permanent basis because it is not possible under the 1981 Act to extend them for a further three years. I apologise to the House if I did not make that clear. I shall check in Hansard, but I felt that I had used the word "indefinitely", certainly at one stage. That also deals with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, asked about. Although the word "permanent" is not on the Order Paper, the regulations will now be on a permanent basis unless changed by Parliament at any stage in the future.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for his speech, as a doctor with great experience. He showed the necessity in one case of a seat belt and how much damage and suffering could have been saved.
I turn finally to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He said on 30th July 1982 when we were debating these regulations that he remembered Noel
70
Coward's Bitter-Sweet and in particular a lovely song by Peggy Wood, "I'll see you again". If he means that he is not coming to grace your Lordships' House with his detailed knowledge, particularly as there is a Salmon Bill before us and I know that that is one of his interests, we shall miss him very sincerely. Fifty-seven continuous years in Parliament is tremendous, and he has given an awful lot of his life to his country. Even if he does not speak, I hope that nonetheless we shall see him.
The time has come to make up our minds. I was a waverer some years ago; I did not vote because I was not sure. There is no doubt in my mind now. The statistics in front of us have proved the necessity of wearing a seat belt. Under the 1981 Act, as I said in my opening speech, we are faced either with dropping the matter completely or making the regulations compulsory until changed by Parliament. I am sure that we ought to adopt the latter course. I commend to your Lordships the Motion in my name.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether, when experiments and innovations have occurred, if it is necessary to standardise the release mechanism at a later stage it will be possible to introduce legislation at that time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that could be covered, I believe, by a construction and use regulation, which would be simpler than bringing it to the House.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, with thanks to the Minister for what he has said about me, can I ask just one question deserving, I believe, a definite answer? In the case of someone who obeys the law, goes out in his car and is killed through no fault of his own because he cannot get out of the vehicle—he may be burned or he may be drowned—who is responsible for the order that made him put on his belt? Is it necessary and wise that this should always be so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is a matter for Parliament to decide these regulations in front of us. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I believe, said, there are a number of things that we have to face in everyday existence that are controlled by Parliament. The wearing of seat belts could be another of those if we agree the Motion in my name, which I hope the House will support.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the Question is, That this Motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Lord Monson: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I think the Contents have it.
Lord Monson: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: Clear the Bar.
My Lords, tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Motion agreed to accordingly.

Hong Kong Act 1985: Nationality Provisions
7.16 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the nationality provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985 (Cmnd. 9637).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the White Paper before us sets out the Government's proposals for implementing the nationality provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985. With the White Paper is a draft Order in Council to enact these provisions. The provisions arise out of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong and the associated exchange of memoranda. Your Lordships will recall that following the debates just over a year ago my right honourable friend the Prime Minister went to Peking to sign the agreement.
The schedule to the Hong Kong Act enabled provision to be made by Order in Council for a number of matters concerning nationality. It provided that British dependent territories citizens by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong will lose that citizenship on 1st July 1997, but will be entitled to acquire a new form of nationality, that of British National (Overseas). The schedule also enabled provision to be made, among other matters, for the avoidance of statelessness. The Sino-British agreement and the Hong Kong Act have therefore already established the framework within which the Order in Council must fit.
Today's debate fulfils the Government's commitment during the earlier debates to produce "an order with green edges". The White Paper was published in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong on 17th October, and the people of Hong Kong had a good opportunity to comment on it. As your Lordships will know, it was debated in the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 4th December 1985. Following that debate, the Council issued a letter on 3rd January asking the Government to make some amendments. They asked for BN(O) passports to be endorsed to the effect that the holder did not need entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for a visit. And they supported the request by the non-ethnic Chinese minorities in Hong Kong—that is, those that are not ethnically Chinese—that they, as well as a small number of former servicemen in Hong Kong, should be granted British citizenship. The Legislative Council passed a formal motion on 8th January asking the Hong Kong Government to urge the British Government to implement these proposals. No doubt many of your Lordships will wish to reflect on the Legislative Council's views today. I shall listen carefully to what your Lordships have to say, and we shall consider whether we need to amend any of the provisions in the order as a result. We shall then formally lay a draft nationality order before Easter.
Turning to the order itself, it affects only those people who are British dependent territories citizens
72
by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong. But it is necessary for the order to define what is meant by "a connection with Hong Kong". Article 2 provides that definition. It sets out as simply and logically as possible the ways in which a person may have a connection with Hong Kong, and it includes all the Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens listed in Annex 2 to the White Paper. Annex 2 itself is simply intended to help people find our whether or not they come within the terms of Article 2.
Articles 2 and 3 should be read together. Article 2 defines connections with Hong Kong for the purposes of the order. Article 3 provides that anyone who is a British dependent territories citizen by virtue of such a connection shall cease to be such a citizen on 1st July 1997.
Article 4 is concerned with the entitlement to acquire the new status of British National (Overseas) and to hold a BN(O) passport. Under the terms of the agreement, BN(O) status can only be acquired by British dependent territories citizens before 30th June 1997, except for those born in the first six months of that year. Acquisition of BN(O) status will be by registration. But the formalities will be kept to a minimum and no fee will be charged for registration.
Article 6 sets out the Government's proposals for reducing statelessness. During the debates last year a number of your Lordships were concerned that British dependent territories citizens who were not ethnically Chinese, and their children, might be left stateless in 1997. The Government therefore gave a firm undertaking that no former Hong Kong British dependent territories citizen, nor any child born after June 1997 to such a person, would remain stateless as a result of the agreement. As your Lordships may recall, this undertaking was extended during the Committee stage of the Hong Kong Bill in your Lordships' House to cover the grandchildren of former Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens if they were born stateless.
The Government's proposals in Article 6 are fully in accordance with the undertakings given in your Lordships' House. They provide that any former Hong Kong British dependent territories citizen who for any reason has not acquired BN(O) status, and would otherwise be stateless in 1997, will automatically become a British Overseas citizen on 1st July 1997. Any of their children born after June 1997, if they would otherwise be stateless, will also acquire British overseas citizenships at birth; and any of their grandchildren, if born stateless, will be entitled to registration as British overseas citizens. These provisions will apply to all, whatever their ethnic origin. Thus non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territories citizens and their descendants will be able to have a form of British nationality until well into the middle of the next century.
We accept, of course, that a continuing right of abode in Hong Kong is no less important than having a recognised nationality status. Clearly no form of British nationality can carry with it right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997, when Britain ceases to have any jurisdiction over the territory. The rights of abode in Hong Kong are necessarily safeguarded under the agreement with the Chinese, and are set out in Section XIV of Annex 1 to the joint declaration. These

73
provisions cover all the non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong, unless they have left Hong Kong permanently and have the right of abode elsewhere.
The non-ethnic Chinese community, supported by the Legislative Council, have argued that the nationality and right of abode provisions do not go far enough. They say that unlike ethnic Chinese British dependent territories citizens they will not have a right of abode in Hong Kong by virtue of their nationality. And they are concerned about the nationality status of their descendants. They have therefore asked to be granted British citizenship, which carries with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom, rather than BN(O) of British overseas citizen status. The Legislative Council have also asked that about 400 former servicemen in Hong Kong should be granted British citizenship, or that the Government should give sympathetic consideration to their registration as British citizens under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
I shall of course listen carefully to what your Lordships have to say. But I have to tell your Lordships that the Government are not persuaded that it would be right to grant British citizenship to non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territories citizens. They want to continue to live and work in Hong Kong, and this is guaranteed by the agreement. Nor would the granting of British citizenship be of any advantage to future generations. British citizenship can be transmitted to only one generation born abroad. The second generation has an entitlement to registration as British citizens similar to the proposed entitlement to British overseas citizen status. After that there is no automatic claim to British citizenship, nor entitlement to registration. Conferring British citizenship on non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong would give future generations no advantage in avoiding statelessness or securing their future in Hong Kong.
The Government's proposals, together with the agreement, will provide all Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens with a recognised nationality status and a place to call their home. As was made clear during the debate on the Hong Kong Bill, the Government's view is that the right course of those who have permanently settled in what will by then have been part of China for many years is for them to apply to become Chinese nationals, although they will not of course be compelled to do so. We have discussed this with the Chinese Government in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, and they have confirmed that non-Chinese who meet the legal requirements under Chinese nationality law may apply for Chinese nationality and their cases will be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.
As to the former servicemen, we recognise of course the valiant and gallant contribution they made during the war. But many of them were born in Hong Kong as were their ancestors. Most are British dependent territories citizens who will be entitled to become BN(O)s and will have the right to abode in Hong Kong. Furthermore, the Hong Kong Act does not allow us to use the order to grant British citizenship to those British dependent territories citizens who have another nationality, and do not therefore risk
74
statelessness; nor to those who are not British dependent territories citizens, even if we thought it right to do so.
We will of course consider any individual application made under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 on the grounds of Crown service under the Government of Hong Kong. But I would remind your Lordships that the Government made it clear during the passage of the 1981 Bill that the discretion under this section would be used very sparingly, and that the key factor in each case would be the quality of service. I cannot predict what the outcome of any application might be, but we should have to look at each one in the light of this criterion. I should also add that this section cannot apply to persons who were in service under the Government of the United Kingdom, which may be the case for a number of these former servicemen.
The Government believe therefore that the provisions in Article 6, together with the agreement, constitute the most satisfactory, reliable and fair way of providing the people of Hong Kong with what they want; that is to say, British nationality and the right to continue to live and work in Hong Kong. The Government have also made it plain that if any British national were forced to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically whether to admit them on a case by case basis in the light of their particular circumstances. But our minds are not closed, and I shall listen carefully to your Lordships views on these matters.
I should like to say a few words now, if I may, about the proposed arrangements for issuing BN(O) passports once the order comes into effect. Although this matter is not strictly part of the draft order, I know that a number of your Lordships are concerned with this matter which is closely linked to the order and is of central importance to its successful implementation.
The Government intend to issue BN(O) passports from 1st July 1987. This will enable Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens to choose between applying for a British dependent territories citizen passport with a restricted validity until 1st July 1997, or a BN(O) passport valid for a full 10 years. It will not be possible to carry both a BN(O) passport and a British dependent territories citizen passport at the same time. The great majority of BN(O) passports will be issued in Hong Kong. But it will be possible for Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens to apply for a BN(O) passport wherever they may be. There will be a fee for the passport, which will be the same throughout the world.
BN(O) passports will contain an endorsement as to the holder's right of abode in Hong Kong. I know that this has been a matter of particular concern to your Lordships. As the House already knows, the Chinese have agreed in principle that the wording of the endorsement should be as follows:
"The holder of this passport has Hong Kong permanent identity card number [the number will be entered] which states that the holder has the right of abode in Hong Kong".
We expect to reach final agreement on this at the next meeting of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group in March.
The Government are confident that BN(O)s will not need their identity cards when they travel, since the agreed wording is clear and unambiguous, and third countries should be satisfied by the clear endorsement that BN(O)s may return to Hong Kong. Once the order is in place we intend to explain the significance of the passport around the world. Your Lordships may know that we have already had encouraging responses to informal approaches from the United States, Australia and the European Parliament.
We believe that this is likely to be the best way of ensuring the acceptability of the BN(O) passport in third countries. We are studying the proposal by the Legislative Council that BN(O) passports should be endorsed to the effect that the holder did not need entry clearance to visit the United Kingdom. It is a fact that entry clearance for temporary visitors is not a requirement; it is available to those who want to be assured of their entry into this country. We must ensure that any proposed endorsement does not lead people wrongly to believe that they are not subject to the immigration rules. Visitors coming here must satisfy the immigration officer that they qualify for admission under the rules. We are, however, considering how best to meet the concerns of the Legislative Council in this matter.
We welcome the interest the White Paper has generated. The matters that we are debating today will have a far-reaching effect on the lives of the 3¼ million British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong and we fully realise its importance to them. The draft order represents a major step along the road we are taking between now and 1997 to implement the Sino-British agreement so as to secure a prosperous and stable future for Hong Kong.
The Government believe that the nationality provisions proposed in the draft order are generally on the right lines. We believe too that they are fair and consistent as between all British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong. But we shall take careful note of the views expressed by your Lordships before finally inviting this House to approve the order. In that spirit I commend the proposals in the White Paper to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper on the nationality provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985 (Cmnd. 9637).—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.33 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the debate on the White Paper. Let me say immediately that the Government and this House have a very special burden and responsibility in this matter, for at least four reasons. The first reason is that, as the Minister frankly said, a promise was made—indeed, it is recited in the White Paper—that before any order is presented to Parliament to deal with the vital rights of the inhabitants of Hong Kong there will be a full opportunity for debate both here and in Hong Kong.
I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is present while I quote what she said so clearly
76
at col. 503 of the Official Report of this House on 19th February 1985. The noble Baroness said:
"I should like, following the point raised right at the beginning by the noble Lord. Lord Cledwvn, to confirm to him that the Government arc prepared to give this House an opportunity, if it wishes, to debate the draft order on nationality in a preliminary way before the House is asked to give its final approval. That is a scheme which I think has been described as debating a draft order with green edges."
If I may say so in parenthesis, those were the very words quoted by the noble Lord the Minister in his introductory remarks. However, the statement of the noble Baroness goes on in this way:
"If necessary, the Government would then withdraw the order and revise it to take account of views expressed by noble Lords and in Hong Kong, before resubmitting it to be dealt with in the normal way under the affirmative resolution procedures. I believe that this will meet the concern which has been expressed".
In a moment I shall raise matters which have been recommended by the Hong Kong Government in looking at this order; which have been the subject of a resolution of the legislative council (both the official and the unofficial representatives); and which were recommended by the majority of the speakers in the other place when the matter was debated there last Thursday; and, I am hoping, the majority of your Lordships' House tonight, in justice to the people of Hong Kong.
If those words mean anything on behalf of the Government, they mean this. If Hong Kong says something through its proper representatives and if Parliament says something by a majority voice, then the Government are morally bound, not just to take account of it, but to enact it. That is the first reason why I say that the Government and this House have a special responsibility.
The second reason that we have a special responsibility is that we are doing something, I imagine for the very first time, in regard to people who have been the subjects of a great empire and a great Commonwealth. Normally we have dealt with territories which are receiving their independence and which have control over their own destiny. We are not doing that in this case: we cannot do it in this case. We have to hand back the lease in 1997 and the inhabitants of Hong Kong are going to another nation—a nation that we salute with respect, but another nation and another culture. Therefore, we are handing over those people not to their own destiny but to a destiny that will be ruled by others and by governments, people and ministers of whom at this stage we have no knowledge at all.
The third reason why we have a special responsibility is that we must remember the leading part which this House took in deciding the nationality rights of others. Your Lordships will remember, possibly with tender memories too, what this House did for the Gibraltarians when we were discussing the Nationality Act 1981. We said then that they must have the rights of full British citizens. They had lived under our flag; they had taken part in our history. We said that Gibraltar must know, and its occupants must know, that they have the full rights of British nationality. Then, when it came to the question of the destiny of those in the Falklands, we said retrospectively, after we had gone to great sacrifice to rescue those people from an aggressor, that the people

77
of the Falklands must have the right to full British nationality. We must remember what we have done for others—in justice we must remember.
The next consideration—and this is the last which I shall mention—is a memory of our history and that of Hong Kong. It has been British since 1842. A week may be a long time in politics; upon any view, 150 years is a long time for the loyalty of others to our flag.
I shall not concentrate on matters already covered by the agreement and by the joint declaration. From all parts of your Lordships' House and in another place Members have congratulated the Foreign Secretary very warmly—and we do so today as well—on all the negotiations that ended in an amicable arrangement with the Chinese government. We pay them tribute too. Nothing that I shall say will require a variation of that joint declaration and agreement by which, in honour, we are bound. All that I shall say—I repeat, supported by the legislative council, the Government and the majority of speakers in another place—can be dealt with properly and honourably and, in my view, with the consent and approval of the Chinese government. However, it must be dealt with by way of a variation of this order, but not by way of a variation of the joint declaration or the agreement.
First, let me deal with what ought to be a very easy matter, and one with which the noble Lord the Minister dealt. It is the question of the rights of the people of Hong Kong, the citizens of Hong Kong, who are holders of British passports, to have the proper, dignified right of entry into the United Kingdom. I am not asking for any variation of our immigration rules or procedures at all. I am merely asking that their passports are endorsed with the clear fact that they have the right of entry—not a right of abode—into the United Kingdom which our immigration officials will immediately see.
Noble Lords may ask why that is necessary. It was referred to in the other place in many speeches, and I should like to quote the Economist of 11th January this year. The article is headed "Hong Kong Passports: Britain's loss too". It states:
"At present even senior Hong Kong businessmen have been subjected to humiliation at the hands of Home Office immigration officials at Heathrow. Paradoxically, America has agreed to treat Hong Kongers more generously than has Britain. They will be given multiple entry visas in their passports which secure unlimited entry into America".
I shall conclude my first point very shortly. I ask for holders of British passports in Hong Kong to be allowed, subject to the ordinary formalities of the immigration officials, to have clearly in their passports the dignified right to enter, but not abide in, the United Kingdom.
The second matter was dealt with by the noble Lord the Minister in what I thought—and I know that he will forgive me for saying so—was a slightly cavalier fashion. I am talking about the rights of colonial civil servants and the ex-servicemen who fought in our forces during the war. There are very few in the first category; there is a maximum of 400 in the latter category. I refer to ex-servicemen who want to be full British citizens, having fought in our forces. I should have thought that that was a concession which could so easily be granted. It is not properly covered—
78
and the Minister was quite frank about this—by Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 because that deals with those who serve under a dependency, not with those who serve directly as employees or servants of the Crown. Therefore, we have to make special provision for them.
I emphasise the particular position of Hong Kong, which will not be given its own independence because that is not possible. Therefore, I ask the Government, and others have asked the Government, as the legislative council and Hong Kong have asked the Government, to give these ex-servicemen that privilege if they want it. It is a dissimilar case; we cannot say they there are many people in India, Pakistan and other places who served in our forces who might now like to have British nationality. They have their own country with a right of abode and citizenship, which they have chosen to have. The position is different with Hong Kong.
The third short but extremely important point is the right of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. There are about 10,000 of them and they include some 6,000 of the Indian community who have been in Hong Kong and who are there now. In order that we may know with whom we are dealing, I should like to quote very shortly from "A Question of Belonging", which is a very interesting and well-written booklet issued by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, who carried out an important visit to Hong Kong before the booklet was prepared. Who are we dealing with?
"They came to Hong Kong because it was British, not because it was Chinese. In the words of the petition of the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations, 'The ethnic Indians came, stayed and remained of their own free choice. They chose Hong Kong because Hong Kong was a part of the British Empire or Commonwealth, because they had faith in the laws and the system of government of Great Britain and because they chose to give or to continue their allegiance to Great Britain'."
Quite apart from that quotation, again, with whom are we dealing when we talk of the Indians and of the other ethnic minorities who have been pleased to serve under the British flag? I should like to quote from an article published in the Financial Times last Saturday. It is headed "Controversy grows over Hong Kong's non-Chinese minority". It reads:
"The roots of the Indian community in Hong Kong—and its historical connection with Britain—run extremely deep The descendants of Abdoolally Ebrahim proudly remind people that their business had been established in Hong Kong months before Jardine Matheson opened its doors in 1841.
"It is rarely remembered that Sir H. N. Mody and Paul Chater established the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, that Dorabji Naorojee began the Star Ferry, or that Sir H. N. Mody endowed the Hong Kong University in 1911, and gave Hong Kong its statue of Queen Victoria, which now stands in Victoria Park.
"While many arrived as traders—most of them Parsees and lsmailis—a large number of Punjabi Sikhs arrived as recruits into Hong Kong's police force.
"Around the time of Indian independence, there was a further major influx. Many arriving at that time were required to re-affirm allegiance to the British Crown …
"The plight of Hong Kong's minorities might have fallen between two stools but for two factors. First, political figures in Hong Kong agreed to back their demands, separating them from the demands of the many ethnic Chinese for full British citizenship as an insurance in case Hong Kong flounders under Chinese administration.
"Secondly, it was realised that business confidence in Hong Kong would be undermined if the Indian community became seriously unsettled."
It is said that those I am talking of, the ethnic minorities, will have the right, because that has been agreed, to reside in Hong Kong because the Chinese

79
Government has agreed to that. And, say the Government at the moment, but presumably capable of having their opinion changed in accordance with their undertaking, if Hong Kong says it and Parliament says it, or the majority of speakers in Parliament, they also are going to have a British passport.
The British passport is the equivalent of a travel document. It gives no other right whatsoever. Somebody may say, "Well, why do they need anything more than a travel document and the right to stay in Hong Kong?" As a first generation, after 1997, they will have grown up under a British tradition and culture. They will be used to a British system of justice. They had elected to swear their oath of allegiance to Britain.
Things may go remarkably well in the last part of this century; things may not go so well. What is the privilege of nationality? I quote, and it is my last quotation, from what somebody has so rightly said on their behalf.
"British citizenship is only a fall hack in the sense that all nationality is: that it pros ides the holder with the security of belonging inalienably to one particular country. Only those who have not the security of such a nationality fully appreciate the vulnerability which this creates".
If you are not ethnic Chinese, you rely upon the generosity, the understanding of a future Chinese Government which, very properly, has reserved to itself the full right of deciding whether or not, even if an Indian applied or one other member of an ethnic minority applied, to give, or give not, Chinese citizenship.
We owe them a duty. Do not let us shirk it by talking about the difficulties of creating precedents. That was the argument, I remember, on Gibraltar. We fought that argument. We won it. That was the argument in regard to the Falklands. We fought that argument, and we won it. I hope, in justice to these ethnic minorities—only 10,000 in total and they will not, in the main, be coming to this country; certainly not if things work out as well when Hong Kong becomes Chinese as the Government and all of us hope—that we shall give them the security they deserve, and the continuity of British culture and British rights if ultimately, and unfortunately, they need that. They should not have to rely on case by case being looked at by a future Government. This is the Parliament which will decide upon their rights. We are not going to leave it to a doubtful future.
I see that time is running out. I am therefore going to limit myself, although I had other things to say, to one other short point. Please let us see to it that in the international community there is general acceptability of the passports we are issuing. Let it be transparently clear that there is no difficulty among the 70 countries of the world where no visas are required; that the passport we are issuing will give no difficulties of entry into those other countries by the endorsements which are clearly on them. That again is a responsibility of the Government.
We are going to hand over a lease that we have held with honour. When we hand over to the freeholder those who depended upon us not only as a good
80
landlord but as a ruling mother country, let us see to it that we do it with honour.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly began by saying that we are having this debate this evening because of the repeated undertakings given by the Government on many occasions that, before the Order in Council implementing the nationality provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985 are finally laid before Parliament, they would consider carefully the views expressed mainly by the people of Hong Kong, but also by your Lordships and by another place.
The noble Lord quoted the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Young (whom we are so pleased to see here this evening) in the debate of 19th February last, that the Government would, in the last resort, be prepared to take away the order and re-submit it to your Lordships in an amended form to take account of the views that had then been expressed by the people of Hong Kong.
As I understand it, this is what is meant by an order with green edges. It is a new phrase in our terminology. I suppose it means something less than a document which is green all over. It means that the Government are not prepared to listen quite as carefully as they would be if it was entitled the Green Paper. But nonetheless, from the number of occasions on which these assurances have been repeated, I think we are entitled to assume, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already said, that if every single view which has been submitted to the Government by the people of Hong Kong, by their representatives, by the organs of opinion in Hong Kong, by another place, and by your Lordships is absolutley unanimous in any one recommendation, then there would have to be some fundamental reasons of principle why the Government would not act on those recommendations. Indeed, in another place last week, on 16th January, the Minister responsible for immigration repeated again at col. 1271:
"We shall consider particularly whether we should amend any of the provisions in the order."
As your Lordships know, the people of Hong Kong have expressed themselves in the most forceful and unanimous manner in the shape of the resolution of the legislative council of 8th January, and we must remind ourselves that this is the only forum which is available to the people of Hong Kong in which they could express their opinions. Therefore, it constitutes the only possible means by which the Government are able to gauge the views of the people of Hong Kong as a whole.
I should remind the noble Lord that there has not been one single dissentient voice raised against the resolution of the legislative council, which asked for the deep concern expressed by the council to be conveyed to the British Government—and I hope that they have indeed been studying this carefully over the last two weeks—on the proposition on which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly concentrated, that any person of non-Chinese ethnic origin ought to be given full British citizenship and not the British overseas citizenship, the nature of which the noble Lord has already outlined.

81
In the debate which took place in the legislative council on 4th December speaker after speaker supported the principle. It would be very difficult to imagine a more impressive demonstration of the strength of feeling on the matter by disinterested members of other ethnic minorities than the support that was given to this resolution.
I told my friends from Hong Kong that I did not believe that the debate this evening would affect the outcome of this decision and that the Government were simply going through the motions without being prepared to give due weight to the opinions that have been expressed. I said that because, in a letter written by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to me on 18th November last she said:
"We are satisfied that we have now moved as far as we reasonably and consistently can to meet their needs"—
that is the needs of the ethnic minorities—
"within the terms of the agreement with the Chinese".
The noble Lord the Minister said again this evening that the Government are not persuaded that it would be right. He said that their minds were not closed and that they would listen carefully to what is said this evening. But I believe that this is a façon de parler because the noble Lord knows already what the arguments are. We can only repeat them on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, and if they have fallen on deaf ears in another place, I do not have a great deal of optimism that what is said this evening, even if it comes from all quarters of the House, and even if there is no dissentient voice here either, will carry an effect in the minds of the Government. I hope that I may be proved wrong; I really do, but the tone of the letter of the noble Baroness and of the Minister this evening was not of people ready to consider the merits of an argument and the strength of support for points of view other than those of the Government.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am sure he will forgive me. I want the Government Front Bench to know that the Opposition Front Bench is much more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We think that this debate is worthwhile and we shall be surprised if the Government do not pay attention to it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is always nice to be proved wrong, and I hope that at the end of this debate the arguments we put will have convinced the Minister. I cannot imagine how we can say anything more forcefully than what has already been put to the Government on so many occasions by every shade of opinion in Hong Kong, by all those in another place except one who spoke in the debate last week.
This argument about the situation of the ethnic minorities only arose because they will not have an automatic right to Chinese citizenship after 1997, but only a conditional discretionary right which they acquire as aliens or stateless persons under Article 7 of the Chinese nationality law.
Mr. Waddington said in another place last week that by the middle of the next century, when the two-generation extension of BOC status would be drawing to an end:
"one would expect that people still resident in Hong Kong will have taken out Chinese citizenship".
82
Why would one expect this? Sir Peter Blaker asked the Minister in another place how the Chinese would apply this discretion, and in his winding-up speech the Minister simply reiterated that in the Sino-British joint liaison group the Chinese had confirmed that Article 7 of their law would apply, that is that non-Chinese may apply for Chinese citizenship. But what indication is there that their applications would be granted? Presumably we have raised this matter in the joint liaison group and I suspect that we were told that, like a British Home Secretary, the Chinese authorities are unwilling to comment on hypothetical cases. Therefore nobody can know whether or not they would be granted Chinese citizenship until the first application is made after 1997. In the meanwhile they are in a state of uncertainty. I do not think I can emphasise too strongly how difficult this makes the situation for the people concerned. I am sure that if the Minister had listened to them he would know that what I say is right.
The feeling of unsettlement creates the major problem for this group of ethnic minorities which prevents them from getting on with their lives and from contributing as they have done in so remarkable a way to the prosperity and wellbeing of the whole territory.
The status of British overseas citizen which is to be assigned automatically to the non-Chinese after 1997 is, I believe, unique. It is the only instance to be found in the nationality laws of any country in the world of a purported citizenship which is not linked to the right of abode in at least some part of the territory controlled by the awarding power. Citizenship, one would have said, until the invention of British Nationals (Overseas) and British Overseas Citizen status, implied residence as well as the right to vote, to stand for public office and to join organisations such as trade unions and political parties. But here we have a citizenship awarded by one power, linked with the right of abode awarded by another power, and apparently conferring no political rights in either country.
Under section XIV of annex 1 of the joint declaration the non-Chinese are to be guaranteed the right of abode if they have been ordinarily resident for seven years in Hong Kong either before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong special administrative region, and have taken it as their place of permanent residence. There will be an entry in their BN(O) or BOC passport referring to another document, as the noble Lord the Minister has described, the Hong Kong permanent identity card, which will be issued by the Chinese authorities. It will be in the latter document that the right of abode is conferred. The necessity for a person to carry two separate documents arises from the fact that after 1997 the Secretary of State who issues the BOC passport has no authority to confer the right of abode in Hong Kong.
Incidentally, there is no such right as a right of abode in the Hong Kong immigration ordinance. As we understand it here, there are "belongers", who are defined as people of British or Chinese descent born in Hong Kong, and those with a "right to land", meaning persons with 7 years' ordinary residence who are nevertheless deportable. An amendment to the ordinance is needed to bring it into line with the

83
agreement. I should be grateful if the Minister who is to wind up would tell the House that this is to be done.
The Government say that they have every confidence that ultimately the 70 countries which grant visa exemption to our own citizens will extend the same privilege to holders of BN(O) passports, and I have no reason to doubt that claim. But the question is not the formal acceptance of the BN(O) passport as a travel document, but whether in practice it enables the holder to enter countries as freely as if he or she were a British citizen. If we ourselves at the airports subject passengers from Hong Kong to delays and extensive questioning, is not our example likely to be copied and even surpassed by others? We appear to be saying that anybody coming here from Hong Kong should obtain an entry certificate which amounts to the same thing as a visa. It means that the passenger has to answer questions put to him by an entry certificate officer in Hong Kong instead by an immigration officer at Heathrow.
I understand that the entry certificate system applies only to persons from the Commonwealth and dependent territories. What happens after 1997? Presumably then we would have to demand visas or letters of consent instead of the entry certificates. Whatever the case may be, I most earnestly support the pleas that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we should introduce some system of multiple entry permits, whether as part of an entry certificate scheme, or more widely to cover passengers who need to come here frequently, such as visitors or students. The noble Lord has already pointed out that the Americans have a system of this kind and make no charge to the travellers who benefit from it. My own passport has a multiple American visa which entitles me to go to the United States on an unlimited number of visits for the whole of the time that this passport is valid. If the Americans can do that, I do not see why the British could not follow suit.
Incidentally, we have just increased the charge for an entry certificate from £12 to £24, and that amount has to be paid for each visit. I suggest to the Minister that it would save unnecessary work and would benefit regular visitors enormously if we could stamp a passport, as the Americans do, in such a way as to allow the holder an indefinite number of visits during the validity of the document.
Whatever concessions are made to ease travel from Hong Kong to Britain, the case for allowing non-Chinese to claim full British citizenship by registration remains overwhelming. Some might still await the transfer of sovereignty in 1997 and then take their chances with an application to become Chinese citizens then. But most of the 10,000 people belonging to the ethnic minorities want the certainty of a definite citizenship now rather than a doubtful status which falls short of proper citizenship and leads to statelessness after two generations. In my opinion if this is offered to them, it creates no precedent because there is not another British territory in the world reverting to control by the sovereign power which originally ruled it—unless you admit the case of the Falklands where citizenship has been conferred on those who are not Argentine nationals. Frankly, I
84
cannot imagine what would be the knock-on effect which was mentioned by the Minister in another place if we granted this concession.
The only other argument against the proposition which was mentioned by the Minister was that giving these people citizenship would be looked at by the Chinese as indicating that we lack faith in the Sino-British agreement. That was the only point about the non-Chinese which he picked up from a debate which strongly supported the case which we are advancing; and I must say that this also reinforced my pessimism about the Government's willingness to listen because the debate was very much on the other side yet that was the only point the Minister picked up.
Of course, there are no grounds at all for attributing this reasoning to the Chinese. On the contrary, there are reasons for believing that the Chinese think that we ought to give citizenship to the minorities, who were originally brought into the territory to serve British interests. The newspaper Wen Wei Po, which is taken to reflect the current views of Peking, carried editorials on January 6th and 7th urging the case of both the non-Chinese and the servicemen; and this morning I had a telex from Hong Kong referring to another newspaper which is even more closely aligned to the views of Peking making uncomplimentary references to the speech which was made by the Minister, and particularly saying that the argument which he put forward concerning the attribution of views to the Chinese that we had no faith in the Sino-British agreement if we made this concession was utterly nonsensical.
If the Minister would kindly reflect on this and revise the views which were expressed by the Minister in another place, I think it would be helpful. I think that the House ought to be told officially from the Government that the Chinese authorities have no particular interest in this matter but, in so far as they would want to express any view at all, it is that our responsibility as the administering power is to make sure that the ethnic minorities who are not fully entitled to Chinese citizenship should be properly taken care of in the interim period.
After last week's debate in another place, the Unofficial Members of the executive and legislative councils issued a statement saying that they were "profoundly disappointed" by the Government's attitude on what they described as the "compelling case" of the non-Chinese and the servicemen; and they went on to accuse the Government of having failed to discharge their moral responsibility to British nationals who have made valuable contributions to Britain and to the Commonwealth. They were right! It will be a tragic mistake if we turn down their plea.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, my researches in Dod's Parliamentary Companion today yielded the information that the noble Lords who precede and follow me in this debate are, like me, Balliol men. I am sure this is an entirely unintended juxaposition, but it is nevertheless comforting to be so surrounded by one's fellow collegians. I am grateful to the Government for providing opportunity in your Lordship's House for discussion of this matter and to the noble Lord the Minister for his introduction to it.

85
I begin my approach to the White Paper and the draft Order in Council with a piece of enumeration to clarify my own mind. There are six groups of people among the nearly 5½ million present inhabitants of Hong Kong. First, there are 3,200,000 people holding British Dependent Territory citizenship who are ethnic Chinese. Under the provisions of the Chinese memorandum, they will be entitled to Chinese nationality. They will also be entitled to register as British Nationals (Overseas). A second group of 2 million immigrants are from China. They are not BDT citizens but, like the first group, they will be entitled to Chinese nationality. There is a third group of 150,000 foreign nationals (that is to say, holding neither British nor Chinese nationality) and a fourth group of 17,000 consisting of British citizens with the right of abode in this country.
A fifth group are those people, numbering 10,000, who hold British Dependent Territory citizenship but are not ethnic Chinese and who, under the memorandum, are not given Chinese nationality. They will be entitled to register as British Nationals (Overseas). Those who fail to do so will automatically become British Overseas Citizens. Sixthly, there is a group of 11,000 stateless refugees, mostly from Indo China. I make this enumeration to press home two points. The first is that those in the first four of those six groups will have a secure and effective nationality which gives them right of abode in the country of their nationality and a status which can be passed to their children. Those in the fifth and sixth groups would be left without a secure and effective nationality.
The second point which I need to press out of that enumeration is that the numbers involved are a small proportion of the total. The estimate of 10,000 people holding BDT citizenship who are not ethnic Chinese is a conservative one and includes the dependants of the people involved. Both groups number less than one in 500 of the total population of Hong Kong. But the smallness of the numbers involved underlines the importance of the position of those vulnerable groups.
I want to mention, first, the position of the stateless refugees, because so far they have not received mention in your Lordships' House this evening. They are mostly Vietnamese; they live in camps, open and closed, that have been set up in Hong Kong while their future is being considered. They live in conditions that are cramped almost beyond belief. I remember, when I visited one of these camps, watching the moment when the lists of those who had been granted admission to other countries were pinned to a board outside the camp's administrative centre. There was an almost pathetic rush to see the names on the lists. I could not help reflecting how undignified a way it was to be informed of decisions which so profoundly affected the lives of those involved.
The rate of resettlement has fallen from 37,000 in 1980 to 1,843 in the first seven months of 1985; of those, four came to the United Kingdom. There is apparently some talk among the authorities that those camps may still be there in 1997 and beyond; and the position of those refugees under the Chinese Government is likely to be even more exposed than it is under British responsibility at the moment. The refugees are a British responsibility, and Britain
86
therefore should give a lead in the resettlement of the remaining refugees.
I want to address the main thrust of my remarks, as have the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Avebury, to the position of the 10,000 or so British Dependent Territories citizens who are not ethnic Chinese. They were granted this BDTC status under the Nationality Act 1981, which put them together with the citizens of all British colonial territories which had not yet gained independence. Yet it is clear that Hong Kong could not gain independence. Its future has been decided by an agreement between two great powers and not by a decision of its inhabitants. The nationality now being offered to this group is the status of British Nationals (Overseas) or of British Overseas citizenship. Neither carries the right of abode in this country. BN(O) cannot be transmitted; and BOC can be given only to children and grandchildren who would otherwise be stateless.
Of these 10,000 people, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, about 6,000 are of Indian origin. They are mostly businessmen, policemen, clerks or others who were used by the British in the administration of Hong Kong. The remaining 4,000 are of Portuguese or other European origin, Eurasians, Malaysians and a few Hong Kong-born Indo-Chinese. Many of them are in clerical or service occupations. Not being of Chinese origin, they cannot be expected to share the positive feelings of the majority over the return to China. Nevertheless, they are not hostile to the agreement: their concern is with the security of their future. Many of them came to Hong Kong in a spirit of enterprise which is the attitude encouraged today. They got, not on their bikes but into their boats, to build businesses and to share in the British way of life.
In 1962 the right of abode in Great Britain was taken from them, and they find now, under the provisions of the White Paper and the draft order, that their only legal place of abode is to be Hong Kong; they will be handed over to Chinese responsibility. Not surprisingly, they feel themselves caught in a series of decisions in which they took no part. I quote at some length from a letter received from one of them, because I believe it expresses the kinds of feelings to be found among these residents in Hong Kong:
"Where once we looked upon ourselves simply as British subjects belonging to a British Crown Colony called Hong Kong, at least those who can claim to be ethnically Chinese are guaranteed papers, an identity, after 1997. The rest of us—and we do not number more than a few thousand—whose families have lived and worked here for generations, will fall into a grey area, belonging nowhere and merely tolerated in the one place we considered our home. We will have no avenue of escape, because the country to which we gave our allegiance is not prepared to recognise us or accord us any rights, thus condemning us to a life of spiritual imprisonment within the bonds of a territory formerly our home under a political system we have been taught to consider alien. And what heinous crime deserves such punishment? That of being born and raised in a British Crown Colony to families who considered themselves British and who educated us accordingly. Is this British justice?"
What are the objections to granting effective nationality and right of abode to the non-Chinese BDT citizens? The first objection is that they already have a nationality under the provisions of the White Paper and the draft order. But the nationality they have, BN(O) or BOC, cannot be said to be a full nationality: it is little more than a travel document and

87
a device to ensure that they are not technically stateless. The Chinese Government does not regard BN(O) as a nationality since it allows that status to ethnic Chinese BDT citizens who will also be Chinese nationals; yet Chinese law forbids dual nationality.
The second objection is that this group already have right of abode in Hong Kong. But Britain has no power to enforce that right after 1997. The assurance that if BN(O)s and BOCs came under pressure to leave Hong Kong it is expected that the British Government of the day would consider their admission sympathetically on a case-by-case basis is a dubious one. The British Government of the future is not necessarily bound by such an assurance. It is imposing a great uncertainty upon a minority group at the very moment when the British Government are trying to persuade them to commit themselves to making the agreement work. If their position should become untenable, or that of their children, for whom they are as deeply concerned as we are for our children, they will be thrown upon the mercy of a British Government of the future whose attitudes are unknown to us.
The third objection is that the granting of British citizenship would undermine the agreement. But under the agreement China would give Chinese nationality only to those who are ethnically Chinese. Responsibility for providing a nationality under the agreement for non-ethnic Chinese is left with the countries responsible. Britain is quite clearly responsible for providing a nationality for non-ethnic Chinese BDT citizens, since the White Paper does provide one. What it fails to do is to provide an effective and secure one.
The fourth objection is that the non-ethnic minorities should be encouraged to apply for Chinese nationality. Since many of them feel that their identity is British and not Chinese, this is not helpful to them. Of course, such feeling may change as Hong Kong's new identity asserts itself; but, again, it may not change. More importantly, they could not acquire Chinese nationality until after 1997, when Britain has relinquished responsibility for the territory and the granting of such a nationality will be wholly at the discretion of the Chinese. An assurance has been received that the Chinese Government will consider applications from non-Chinese who meet the legal requirements of the Chinese nationality law, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already commented—and I make no apology for repeating the point—to consider applications is not the same as to grant them, and it will not be possible to test whether requests will be granted until after 1997. Once again there is very considerable uncertainty.
A fifth objection is that the Chinese would object to such a move. But all the evidence coming to hand is that the Chinese are expecting and encouraging the British Government to take action to secure effective nationality status. During the debate in the Legislative Council on 4th December 1985, to which noble Lords have already made reference, seven speakers covered the position of the non-Chinese BDT citizens. Five of these were ethnic Chinese, and all five spoke in favour of more satisfactory arrangements for the minorities than is at present being granted. I will quote from two of them. The Honourable Allen Lee said:
88
"I have talked to quite a few Chinese BDTC passport-holders. I can safely say that they have no objection to the minorities obtaining British citizenship or retaining their BDTC status. In fact, they wish the minorities the best of luck."
He concluded:
"In my view this is a British responsibility. Failing to take up this responsibility is unthinkable. I hope that Members of the British Parliament consider this carefully."
The Honourable Stephen Cheong said:
"Please take heed of the request of the small number (less than 10,000) of British subjects of Hong Kong who are not ethnic Chinese. The uniqueness of their case must rank equally with, if not higher than, the case of the Gibraltarians or Falklanders, for it is the British Government that decided to return Hong Kong to China."
What of Peking's view? The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already commented on the reports of pro-Peking newspapers published in Hong Kong. Again, I make no apology for repeating the point since I believe what is said needs to be underlined. One such paper has said that it supports the right of non-Chinese BDT citizens to fight to gain effective British citizenship. Another has criticised, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, the statements of the Minister of State in another place, and has said that Britain should not try to avoid its responsibility. There appears to be a consensus emerging among the Chinese not only that the present offer of BN(O) or BOC status is insufficient but that the British Government are avoiding responsibility if they do not come forward with proposals to secure a proper nationality for this non-Chinese minority.
The final objection I should like to be considered is that this group, like many others, is only trying to find a way of escape, a way of getting into this country, as many people are today. This is to misunderstand the case. It is not, in the first place, about a fall-back position, an escape, for people who would like to come here if things go wrong. It is about ensuring a secure and effective nationality for all Hong Kong residents.
Apart from the refugees, the only people not to have such a secure and effective nationality are the non-Chinese British Nationals.
The moral arguments for the responsibility resting upon the British Government to this group are, to my mind, overwhelming, but I should like to add to them a pragmatic argument which in this case—though it is not always so—supports the moral imperative. Should Britain fail to honour its obligation, those who can afford to do so will look elsewhere for their nationality. They will leave Hong Kong for a period in order to establish residents' rights, which could enable them to claim nationality in other countries. At the very moment when stability is necessary, they will be absent from Hong Kong out of a proper concern for their own, and their children's, future. Such an absence can only be damaging to the stability and the prosperity of Hong Kong.
The Government have granted to Gibraltarians the right to register as full British citizens under the 1981 nationality Act. Falkland Islanders had their own nationality Act passed in 1983 to make them full British citizens. The minorities of Hong Kong look to the British Government for equal consideration.
8.31 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the clarity with which he

89
set out the Government's position on this draft order. First, I want to say something about the background in Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about the remarkable unanimity behind the requests that have been made by the legislative councillors. I am sure that this is right. For my part, I cannot recollect an occasion on which there has been such unanimity and such force behind a request to the British Government. I am afraid that there really are deep feelings of frustration and resentment. The editor of the South China Morning Post, who really is a most balanced man, recently referred to nationality as an issue which, in his words, has caused,
"deeper agony than almost any other connected with the future."
This is not rhetoric. To my personal knowledge it is fact. Moreover, it applies particularly to the better educated and more articulate—in fact, just the people on whom the future of Hong Kong depends.
It is not easy for us to enter into the feelings of people whose administrative power is being changed once and whose nationality is being changed twice in a single generation. Nor is it easy to appreciate the extreme difficulty of the Governor in such a situation. I emphasise all this, because I urge your Lordships that against this background, as well as on the merits, it is very important that these requests be dealt with satisfactorily. They do not necessarily affect this draft—though they might do, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—but some of them can certainly be dealt with administratively. But it is certainly appropriate that they should all be raised in connection with this draft and responded to before the order is made.
First, there is the question of the new British National (Overseas) passport. Preparations for this seem to be going well, as the noble Lord the Minister said. The only major issue on which a decision is necessary at this stage is the councillors' request for an entry in the passport covering visits to the United Kingdom, and I will come back to this. The formula agreed in principle with the Chinese Government to indicate right of abode is satisfactory, and it is an indication of the good work being done by the Joint Liaison Group. It is also satisfactory that some major countries have already indicated that they will recognise the passport. The noble Lord the Minister has said that the Government will press ahead with obtaining formal recognition as soon as it is possible to do so.
All this is good, but when the new passport starts being used, and in spite of formal recognition by governments, the novelty is bound to cause problems with some immigration officers in some places. I am sure that, even if our embassies and consulates stand ready to pounce, the request for an entry in the new passport is highly relevant. The request is to indicate that the holder is entitled to bona fide visits to the United Kingdom. The Hong Kong councillors have said explicitly that they accept that this would not affect normal immigration control, but it would give an indication to immigration officers in third countries of the value attached to the passport by the British Government.
In the debate on the draft order in Hong Kong on 4th December, a QC, Mr. John Swaine, put it like this:
90
"The important thing is for Britain to set the lead in giving the new passport international acceptability".
I am sure that that is right and, by agreeing, we can supplement the efforts we are making to give it a good launch. In any case, it is surely appropriate that the passport should indicate that holders are welcome to make bona fide visits to the United Kingdom. After 140 years of British rule we should not make a meal of this.
The Minister of State in another place has already said that the Government are giving this proposal sympathetic consideration, but I really do not think that this meets the situation in Hong Kong. This request was at the head of the councillors' list. They confirmed on 18th January, after the debate in another place, that freedom from normal immigration control was not being sought. Surely the Government could, without more ado, say that a suitable form of words will be found. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will do so, because this seems to me the most immediately important of these requests—not the most important; I am not prepared to differentiate between these requests—because it affects all 3½ million people who will become British Nationals (Overseas) and acceptance of the passport is the immediate issue.
That brings me to the request for British citizenship for the two groups—the ethnic minorities and the service veterans. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the exceptions that we have made for Gibraltar and the Falklands. The Government have indicated the difficulties in making an exception over these two categories, but this will not do. It is simply a question of political will. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate that there is no question of the granting of this request being in any way objectionable to the Chinese Government. I am quite sure that they will regard this as a purely British matter. For my part, I certainly accept that these people are in quite a different category from the ethnic Chinese majority.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I was inclined to conclude from what the noble Lord the Minister said that the Government were preparing at this stage not to accept the solution requested by the councillors; that is, the granting of British citizenship. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not read this into his words but thought that he still had an open mind on this matter, because this question will not go away.
If the problem had been based on lack of the automatic expectation of Chinese nationality available to the rest of the population, it might be solved by discussion with the Chinese Government. But the senior legislative councillor stated in a letter of 3rd January that many would rather emigrate than apply for Chinese nationality. Nevertheless, I am glad that we have spoken to the Chinese Government about this. I hope we will keep in touch with them about it, because the minorities' attitude seems in part due to concern about their prospects under the Special Administrative Region, and in any case I presume that, even if the Government were prepared to grant their request, as I hope they will, probably rather few would come here. In part, too, they are obviously sceptical about the value of the British (Overseas)

91
passport, with its absence of a state or right of abode in a state, which has to be procured, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, under separate arrangements. To them it clearly appears a very strange animal. I wonder whether anything can be said about experience of how in practice this citizenship has been found to meet people's needs.
We are talking about a very valuable and worthy element in the Hong Kong community, and it would be deplorable if they felt obliged to leave and it will be destabilising and a serious reflection on us if their present concern remains. I agree with the legislative councillors that this is a British problem. It really must be solved and the fears of these people removed. If not, I am afraid that this issue may poison the atmosphere in Hong Kong.
This brings me to the case of the veterans. This is rather different and much simpler. At the end of this long era of British rule inevitably there are some debts to be paid. The legislative councillors say that this is such a debt. I am sure that they are right. I think the question of precedent or of opening up claims from elsewhere can be greatly overstated. It is just a matter of definition, and I suspect that the numbers will be found to be small. Of course we must bear in mind the very special arrangements that we made in this respect for Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. If exceptions can be made for them, surely an exception can be made for these people. In this case it is the gesture and the recognition of our responsibility that is so important, and I hope the gesture can be made.
Other aspects of Hong Kong and our relations with China are proceeding fairly well. There have been some ups and downs and some worries but generally speaking the progress is fair to good. The market is high and business confidence has returned. So the reaction to this draft order, and the strong language of the legislative councillors may have come as a shock to noble Lords. But, my Lords, I have worked with many of these councillors and with some I have kept in touch. They are serious and experienced people deeply aware of the problems through which they have to lead Hong Kong. I read these requests as a strong demand for a response in a highly charged situation and I very much hope it will be made.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, it is a great honour to speak after the noble Lord who has more experience than anyone else in this House and who always puts his case without exaggeration. Therefore the speech he has made today is all the more impressive, because I think it is the first time I have heard him say anything which is a little against what the Government are proposing.
I spoke in the first debate and in the other debates that have taken place and therefore I shall say a few words today because I am particularly interested in the territory. I should like to say that the speech made by Lydia Dunn, the Unofficial Member, was excellent, it was balanced; she put forward the points, and I think it was received extremely well. We also have to remember that we owe quite a lot to the Chinese in Hong Kong for the marvellous prosperity they brought
92
to that part of the world. When I went there in 1946 it was, as one can imagine, in a very dilapidated state. Many people had been imprisoned under the Japanese; business had not been carried on, and many people were hungry at that time. I have had a chance to see a complete change up to the present time.
With regard to the speech, I gather there has not been any adverse reaction from China, which I think is extremely important. I understand that the pro-Peking press in Hong Kong publicly supported all three of the major Legislative Council requests, including one that the minorities should have full British citizenship. I should like to make one suggestion. When India became independent, they granted the Portuguese in Goa and the French in Pondicherry full citizenship. I know that they took over Goa first, but they did give them full citizenship. If we cannot give full citizenship to these people we should ask the Chinese if they will do it on the same lines as India. After all, India was a republic and China is a republic, and it might be a good example of what they can do to help.
I had a meeting the other day with the Indian deputation and with another deputation last Monday with regard to minorities. They feel very strongly about the points that have been raised already today. Many of the Indians have been there for four generations and helped to start the industries in that country. They started banks and businesses and they served in the civil service, the police and the prison service. I think that we should give deep consideration to their position.
The question of refugees has also been raised. I gather that we are now to have 500 more reunion cases and that there are still a great number in camps. I should like to know what will happen if any more come between now and 1997. It will be an increasing problem unless something can be done about it. I should also like to mention the servicemen who gave splendid loyalty during the time of the Japanese occupation. I am a trustee of the Far East prisoners of war, and I have taken a considerable interest in all people who suffered during that period. There are not very many of them who would want British citizenship, and I feel that they should have it. After all, they have nowhere to go. Most of them were born there. They are not like the Sikhs, who can go back to their own country, or the Gurkhas, and so on. They have absolutely nowhere to go.
I was very glad that the noble Lord mentioned the question of the Falklands, because I believe very strongly that we shall be in the same position as we are in with Hong Kong if we have lease back. We have learnt something about the need to keep our eyes on these various countries to make sure that we do not fall into this trap again.
The British Government will do all they can to ensure that BN(0) passport holders may enjoy the same access to other countries as is enjoyed by BDTC holders. It seems to me to be very strange that they can get residence in the EC countries but not in Great Britain on those passports. They will have the trouble of getting many visas when they go from country to country. When I was working in Malaysia my passport expired and I had to get one in Singapore. Therefore I

93
have some knowledge of the difficulties that occur. I had difficulties in Germany, where I was nearly turned off the train when I showed my passport. Things have changed now, partly because of the EC, but I did have difficulty and found myself in Ellis Island when I got to America. That was quite fun, because I was there for only two or three hours. That was all due to difficulties with my passport.
Nobody has yet mentioned the question of students. There will be students wanting to come here, particularly students of music. Some of them are brilliant at playing European music but they will not be able to obtain in China in the same way the training that they can get here. There is also the question of law students. It is very sensible that we should have students over here studying law if we are going to keep that aspect going.
On 16th January, the Minister of State said in another place:
"That is a valuable reminder to the House that it is always possible for the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion to allow someone to enter the country and later qualify for British nationality if there is exceptional hardship".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/86; col. 1305.]
I suggest that there will be exceptional hardship to them all if the Government cannot help them in that way. The Minister added:
"In the case of … somebody under the age of the majority, section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows the Home Secretary to grant British nationality as a matter of discretion".—[col. 1306.]
I do not know whether that would also allow the Home Secretary to deal with students.
I understand that many Hong Kong Chinese do not want any form of British nationality as they think that such would imply rejection of their Chinese identity. However, they do want Britain to help them secure a recognised status in Hong Kong that reflects that they are nationals of China.
The Honourable Stephen Cheong said:
"I wish to plead to whoever takes part in the debate in Westminster … to try to take heed of our concerns—listen attentively to our suggestions and the rationale behind our suggestions—and finally persuade the United Kingdom Government to adopt our proposals".
That was very well put. It is very moving that we should receive such a plea.
Finally, I have received a telex from Hong Kong that states:
"Obviously a considerable amount of interest is being shown in the drafting of the Basic Law and it will be essential that it follows the current system as closely as possible. Any major change would be disastrous for both confidence and stability in Hong Kong. In addition, there is considerable debate at present concerning the passport issue and, in particular, the status of the minority groups in Hong Kong after 1997".
I received that telex this morning. I should like to re-emphasise the fears and worries that are felt by the people of Hong Kong. We must all try to find some way of seeing to it that those people do not worry and get themselves into difficulties in the future. We wish them to have a happy Hong Kong.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord the Minister on his clarity. I must confess that I am like the boy who was sure that in his exam
94
there would be a question on Napoleon but who, to his horror, found instead that the question concerned Wellington. He therefore began his answer by stating, "To understand fully about Wellington, one has first to understand about Napoleon".
It is not generally realised that for the past 150 years Hong Kong has been a British colony and not a country. It has never had national status and post-1997 it is destined to become at best a Chinese colony defined as a special administrative region. All Chinese British Dependent Territory citizens will have Chinese nationality available to them after 1997. Non-Chinese holders of such citizenship are being provided with a new form of British passport that will not give them the right to live in any British territory. They can stay in Hong Kong after 1997 only through the goodwill of the Chinese.
Here I want to digress. When foreign governments and foreign dynasties were established in China, they were soon absorbed by the Chinese, who imprinted a certain "Chineseness" upon their barbarian conquerors, while at the same time the barbarians put new blood into China. An analogy is the marriage of an English aristocrat with a chorus girl. That is what is happening to Marxism in China today. Marxism in its purest form was never suitable for China, but with severe adaptation it could become so. It may be that a form of federal government will emerge. Personally, I doubt whether a central government can govern 1,100 million people. We therefore have the position where there is an experimental situation in Chinese politics. This is known and is accepted by the Chinese themselves.
Very few holders of British Dependent Territory citizenship will want to leave Hong Kong even in the present circumstances. They are mostly entrepreneurs who own successful businesses and who control 12 per cent. of Hong Kong's export trade. We are utterly commited to maintaining stability and prosperity, and those are the people who will help us to do it. That runs through all the documents that have been produced on this subject. It appears three times in the annual report that we have just received. We shall fail in our duty to Hong Kong if we do not seek to do all in our power to keep Hong Kong prosperous in the years ahead.
What are we doing? We are penalising the people concerned. We are not taking the opportunity to keep in Hong Kong the very people who have made Hong Kong what it is. Hong Kong is a unique place. It has the admiration of the world. There is no doubt that we fail to keep stability and prosperity in Hong Kong at our peril. To exclude these people about whom we have been talking tonight would be grossly unjust. In biblical days the cry went up, "Let our people go". The cry should go up from this House, "Let our people stay".
9 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, a number of your Lordships will doubtless recall the long and tortuous passage of the British Nationality Bill, as it then was, in 1981. At that time we had the benefit, and if I may say so the privilege, of my noble friend Lord Belstead as our guide and, nearly always, our mentor. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur has said—and I think he said it

95
it three times this evening—that he would listen carefully to what is said today. I am sure—and I really mean this—that as Lord Mishcon has said, he will listen just as keenly and consider it just as seriously as did his and my noble friend, the now deputy Leader, five years ago.
Before getting to the fundamental issues, I should like to raise two points of detail. The first concerns the statement made by my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State in another place last week, and repeated by my noble friend the Minister this evening. They both said—and I have this verbatim—
"From the 1st July 1987 Hong Kong BDTCs will have a choice of applying for a BDTC passport with a restricted validity until 30th June 1997. or for a BN(O) passport valid for a full 10 years".
The quote continues:
"It will not be possible to carry both a BN(O) and a BDTC passport".
Very simply I must ask my noble friend the Minister why not? At least, by carrying both the holder can test out the acceptability of the BN(O) passport without putting his journey at risk. In all the circumstances, I must ask my noble friend to seek amendment to the one or the other situation. What harm can arise by a BDTC passport holder concurrently holding a BN(O) passport?
The second point of detail is closely allied to the first; namely, the question of dual BDTC and BN(O) passports. Article 4(3) of the White Paper states—and I trust I have it correctly:
"Am person who, haling become a British National (Overseas) by virtue of paragraph (2) above, ceases at any time before 1st July 1997 to be a British Dependent Territories Citizen, shall at the same time cease to be a British National (Overseas)".
I read this very carefully on a number of occasions and it is very likely conceivable that I have missed the point; but if the holder of a BN(O) passport cannot concurrently retain his BDTC passport, then it would appear that he is no longer a British Dependent Territories Citizen, in which case, according to Article 4(3) which I have just quoted, he must by definition cease to be a BN(O) as well. It is possible of course that my noble friend will tell us that, though the holder of a BN(O) passport must relinquish his BDTC passport, nevertheless he will remain a British Dependent Territories Citizen.
Surely this is a most curious situation, when a citizen is barred from holding the passport for which he is eligible because he is encouraged to hold another. I ask my noble friend to look at this point and perhaps alleviate my fears on it.
On the fundamental issues and what is really much more important, I not only support the unanimous proposals of the Hong Kong legislative councillors and note the UMELCO statement of last Friday as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I also quote the very end of that statement when UMELCO said that they now looked to the House of Lords for a just and more sympathetic consideration of Hong Kong's case. I emphasise that most strongly.
Good progress certainly has been made and we should not belittle it in any way. As has been said by many other noble Lords, and I support it most strongly, the joint declaration was a masterpiece. I
96
think that in every respect it was infinitely better than nearly anyone expected, even in the detail. Huge progress has been made. British Dependent Territories Citizens are just that. They are BDTCs and not a frightful thing called a COTBDT—a dreadful prospect which has thankfully been avoided. British Overseas Citizen status has been extended to a second generation. The very title "British National Overseas" is a good one.
In answer to a Question for Written Answer on the 3rd December last my noble friend Lady Young—and I, too, say how nice it is to see her on the Front Bench today—gave welcome news regarding the right of abode endorsements. All these are warmly welcomed. But they are still very limited and, as has been reiterated this evening—I make no apologies that I am going to say exactly the same as noble Lords have said previously—there are specific instances when we must support the contention put forward unanimously by the legislative councillors.
The vast majority of your Lordships, if not all, have passports as of right, which is a fact that is very easy for us to forget. Provided that we are not wanted by the law, we can travel virtually where and when we want, mostly without the necessity of a visa; and even when a visa is required it is not difficult to obtain. Many of your Lordships will know of my close affinity with Hong Kong, stemming perhaps in this House from the British Nationality Bill.
As has been said, it is a vibrant, hard-working community; but it is tiny, and if it is to survive, as the joint declaration wishes it to, its people must have totally unfettered means of travel. It has one resource only—I have said this before in your Lordships' House, and I say it again—and that is its people. If its people cannot travel and if the confidence of those people is lost, Hong Kong will revert to the barren rock that it was 140 or 150 years ago. Paragraph 5 of the joint declaration specifies that point about the continued lifestyle and freedom of travel, so in no way are we going against anything said in it.
I have no doubt at all of the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government and of my noble friend the Minister in all that they have said. But perhaps in slightly different words from my noble friend Lord MacLehose I must state that I do not think that just sincerity is now enough. Action must be seen to be taken. We owe it to the present BDTCs of Hong Kong to be overt that a holder of a BN(O) passport has no less rights or privileges than a BDTC. Yes, there should indeed be a clear, unequivocal statement placed in each such passport that the holder does not require any certificate or visa to enter the United Kingdom, though he will of course still be liable to ordinary immigration rules and regulations.
I fully support the case for full British citizenship for what my noble friend Lord MacLehose describes as the "veterans". They are few in number even now. By 1997, if my calculations are anywhere near correct, the youngest will be well into his seventies. Could not my noble friend make this apparently small but in fact emotionally very significant gesture and undertake that such BDTC ex-servicemen and women alive on, say, 1st January 1997 will be eligible for full British citizenship?

97
The larger issue with respect to full British citizenship concerns, as we have heard, the Hong Kong BDTCs who are not ethnic Chinese. In passing, I must say that I do not agree with the suggestion that they might become citizens of another British dependent territory. That seems to me to be quite impractical, not least in that it presupposes willingness by both the individual and the chosen host dependent territory.
However—and I am conscious that perhaps my noble friend the Minister will comment on this—in what some might call a fundamental change of personal opinion I am strongly persuaded that there is now a case for granting such non-ethnic Chinese full British citizenship. Many of your Lordships will, like me, have been shown strong evidence that this would not cause resentment or reaction from the otherwise similarly placed ethnic Chinese; nor to my knowledge, as indeed we have heard this evening, has there been any adverse reaction from Beijing to the widespread publicity to that suggestion. If I may say so, the remarks by my noble friend Lord MacLehose in this respect as to what he anticipated the Chinese reaction would, or perhaps more accurately would not, be are very significant from his vast wealth of experience on the subject.
The numbers are really minuscule. It has been said in another place, and it was repeated by my noble friend the Minister this evening, that conferring full British rather than BN(O) or BOC citizenship on the non-ethnic Chinese minority would not benefit future generations any more than the present proposals, since it could be transmitted only to one generation born abroad. But, with respect, that is really no argument. First, if that is so (which indeed it is under the British Nationality Act). then why not make the gesture, as it will have virtually no effect on United Kingdom immigration? Secondly, it would not only create enormous goodwill in Hong Kong towards the United Kingdom (a commodity which I must say to your Lordships is a very rapidly dwindling one) but the reverse is also true. It would put the onus firmly on the individuals concerned to make a considerable choice and effort to carry such full British citizenship beyond one generation. The onus would be on them.
We have heard many impressive speeches this evening, but none more so than the very authoritative and, if I may say so, persuasive speech of my noble friend Lord MacLehose. We have a chance with this green-edged White Paper to relieve the remaining fears of the people of Hong Kong with regard to nationality after June 1997. Let us take that chance. We risk, effectively, nothing. We stand to regain the confidence and respect of the people of Hong Kong which, in turn, is vital for the successful implementation of the joint declaration.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, like, I think, every noble Lord who has spoken so far, I, too, want to speak about the position of the 6,000 Hong Kong Indians—but from a particular point of view. I know that there are the other 4,000 people of non-Chinese origin who are in the same position about nationality as the Indians. But it is for the Indians that I have a particular fellow feeling. I remember in 1948, when India
98
achieved its independence, my father having to make the choice of where his future nationality should lie. I remember him, like the Hong Kong Indians, deciding to take the advice of the Indian Government that expatriate Indians should take the citizenship of the place where they had decided to make their home.
I therefore came quite early to understand what citizenship is about. It is a form of contract. It is about a person, on the one hand, taking on certain responsibilities and acquiring certain rights, and the state, on the other hand, assuming certain rights over the individual but also certain responsibilities for him. It is those responsibilities that Her Majesty's Government seem to be seeking to avoid; indeed, unilaterally, they seem to be breaking the citizenship contract. The normal assumption that citizenship carries with it the right of abode in the country of which the person is a citizen has long since ceased to apply. The right of abode that these people will have in Hong Kong will be unenforceable by the country whose passport they carry. And this is to happen to a community that is diligent, enterprising, cultured and hitherto very pro-British. Many have served the colonial power in high or low capacities for generations. All of them feel that they are being let down in a way that they had not thought possible.
It is terribly difficult to understand why the Government are so determined to resist giving these people full citizenship and thus the right of abode in the United Kingdom, because they change their ground so often. Some months ago, it used to be that ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong would resent discrimination in favour of the Indians. That argument has now gone out of the window. Then it seemed that the Government felt that to make this concession now, so soon after the agreement, would be seen by the Chinese Government as a signal of no confidence in the agreement. But we have heard tonight from very authoritative sources that the Chinese take the view that the Indians have a case for special treatment by the British. It may, of course, be that the Government have fallen prey to the terror that has struck other governments before them, both Labour and Tory, at the thought of people with skin of my colour coming to live in this country. I have spoken to a number of Hong Kong Indians. The strong impression that I have formed is that this particular lot of Indians at least—like me, I hope—can just about pass muster in polite society.
In any case, if the Hong Kong Indians are given the right of abode in this country, we know that 6,000 or even 10,000 people will not suddenly arrive here, though, if they did, they would be less than the number of British citizens who emigrated last year to the United States alone. The Hong Kong Indians do not particularly want to come here and would probably all prefer to go on living peaceably in Hong Kong. They simply want the right to the full nationality to which everyone is surely entitled in order to feel that he belongs fully to one particular country.
If they are not given this right, what then will happen? My impression is that of other noble Lords—that over the years between now and 1997 the Indian community will drift away from Hong Kong to other countries enlightened enough to understand the contribution that they can make, taking with them

99
their stake in Hong Kong's future. If that happens, the British Government will not have evaded a problem. The losers will be not so much the Indians but the people of Hong Kong as a whole, to whose welfare the Indian community has made a significant contribution in the past and could do so in the future. This may be taken as a signal by other businessmen, who respect the acumen of the Indians, to follow suit. Britain will have passed up a chance of retaining not just the loyalty but the energies of the Hong Kong Indians. There will be another little tawdry tale to be told about the retreat from Empire.
I would say only one thing on another subject. I think that this evening is perhaps not the time to talk fully about the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, since they figure in no one's nationality provisions for the colony. But there they are—8,000 to 9,000, I think, in open and closed camps, and the recent much-trumpeted permission for 500 to come here, to which the noble Baroness referred, does not significantly alter the problem. It is unthinkable that they should be allowed to remain in these camps until the transfer of power. Whenever Hong Kong is discussed in this House, and 1997 approaches, it must be remembered that somehow the future of these refugees has to be resolved—and the sooner the better.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as we would all expect, this has been an excellent debate. We have been particularly fortunate in being able to hear from a number of your Lordships whose valuable contributions to the debate stem from a close personal experience both of Hong Kong and of China. Understandably, our discussion has gone rather wider than the substance and detail of the draft Order in Council attached to the nationality White Paper. It is right to do so, since we need to see how the draft fits into the wider picture.
The framework is already in place. As I said at the beginning the action we take now must be consistent with the Sino-British Agreement and with the Hong Kong Act 1985. Together these have set the parameters for the detailed nationality arrangements proposed in the draft order. Within that framework the order as drafted has sought to be fair and consistent as between all British Dependent Territories citizens in Hong Kong. We want provisions which meet the real needs and understandable concerns of the people there in a way that properly complements the commitments we have already made to the people of Hong Kong and to the Chinese Government. We want to make sure that the provisions which we introduce work well in practice and are clearly understood by all those who may be involved.
Of course, there are some sincere differences about how these objectives can be achieved. I hope that I have interpreted the views expressed tonight aright in saying that I believe the principles are widely shared in your Lordships' House.
However, I turn now to some of the principal points made by your Lordships in the debate. Following such a wide-ranging discussion I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go into the fullest of full
100
detail on all of them. However, I can assure your Lordships that I and my ministerial colleagues will be considering all the points carefully as we come to consider the draft order again in the weeks ahead.
I think that there are four main areas of concern: British citizenship of the non-ethnic Chinese; the granting of British citizenship to former servicemen; the entry endorsement; and the acceptability of BN(O) passports to third countries. There was one very fundamental point raised in a quotation by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon where he seemed to suggest that the Government were handing Hong Kong over to the Chinese. I shall, of course, study the quotation and the remarks of the right reverend Prelate with great care. But this is not the case. We are talking here about something which is the result of a carefully and thoroughly negotiated treaty. This debate—which we are conducting now—was promised by my noble friend Lady Young last year to meet the concerns which were expressed then. That shows the unusual lengths to which we are going to secure the most proper, fair and practical solution to the full range of problems which we have been discussing this evening.
First, there is the question of British citizenship for non-ethnic Chinese. I note the views and concerns that have been expressed this evening. Nearly everyone who has spoken has expressed their support for the view that those in Hong Kong who are not ethnic Chinese should be offered British citizenship.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister forgive me? He used the words "nearly" all. Would he kindly tell his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that every single speaker in this House made that recommendation, together with support for the other recommendations of the Legislative Council? And would he be reminded of the undertaking of his noble friend Lady Young that in the light of discussion and debate the order will be considered and, if necessary, amended?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if I said "nearly" and I should have said "every" speaker I apologise unreservedly to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may cover the other point which he raised when I have a chance to respond to the whole issue, which I am about to do.
I fully appreciate the anxieties of those British Dependent Territories Citizens who have no other nationality and who would not be regarded by the Chinese as their nationals. The draft order makes specific provision to guard against the possibility of statelessness for such people up to about the middle of the next century. The agreement with China guarantees their continued right of abode in Hong Kong. It remains the Government's view that the right course for them and their descendants who remain in Hong Kong is to seek Chinese nationality. However, we have listened carefully, as we promised to do—and I have done so tonight—to the arguments forcefully expressed for granting them British citizenship, and we shall consider the matter again very carefully.
But I have to say—and this is an important point—that we believe we have an excellent treaty. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said so himself. Therefore, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that

101
in expressing concerns—and those concerns are understandable—we must in no sense undermine the agreement. It is that agreement which underpins so much of what we are discussing tonight and so much of what we are trying to do. I believe that it is that agreement that will lead to prosperity in Hong Kong in the future in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, wished and described.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that that was the only point of substance that I was making as regards this particular issue. I must say to the noble Lord that it is such a fundamental point that I do not think I can usefully add to what I have just said. It is very much the key to the whole issue.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with his enormous experience, which I fully respect, in talking about the ethnic minorities said that it would be deplorable if they felt obliged to leave. With respect to the noble Lord, I do not feel that that is a particularly encouraging view to take. The whole aim of the agreement is to provide a secure future for all Hong Kong's residents—one in which they can feel confident and can continue to live and prosper. The agreement guarantees that.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say that that was my view. I was quoting the view of the legislative councillors. In a letter from the senior councillor, it was stated that if they had to choose they would emigrate rather than apply for Chinese nationality. I think that we really have to take account of that.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly shall take account of it. I shall take account of it with my honourable friend the Minister and others, in the way in which I said that I would take account of the other views which have been expressed on this particular issue. If I have misrepresented the noble Lord in saying that it was a view which he was expressing when he was in fact representing the views of people in Hong Kong, then I apologise to him and to them.
I turn to the qustion of granting British citizenship to former servicemen. I appreciate the concerns which again everyone has raised on this issue. It was certainly no intention of mine to treat this matter in a cavalier fashion—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That was not my intention at all, because there are serious difficulties and I shall, I hope, explain why.
One of the problems foreshadowed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, was the difficulty about trying to distinguish servicemen—and this concerns the whole question of definition—as a different group. Some of them are ethnically Chinese and some are not. Some of them are not even British Dependent Territory citizens. The order cannot be used to grant either group British citizenship. To expand a little, it is not possible to make provisions in the order to confer British Citizenship on all former servicemen in Hong Kong because it is not permissible under the Hong Kong Act 1985. It would require an amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981. Such amendment could not be made by the order because that cannot make any provision not permitted under
102
the Hong Kong Act, and it would therefore require primary legislation.
The reasons are as follows. First, some former servicemen may not be BDTCs, as I said just now. Paragraph 2 of the schedule to the Hong Kong Act, and consequently the order itself, can only affect people who are BDTCs by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong. Secondly, some may be ethnic Chinese BDTCs or may have another non-British nationality, and nothing in the Hong Kong Act permits the conferral of British citizenship on BDTCs who do not risk statelessness.
As to registration of all former servicemen under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act, which I believe was one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that would not be possible because Section 4(5) can apply only to persons who have been in Crown service under the Government of a dependent territory. That was the point which the noble Lord made. The limited information available indicates that a number of former servicemen in question were in regular British Forces units and were therefore in Crown service under the Government of the United Kingdom. Therefore, they are not eligible for registration under Section 4(5), and there is no other provision available.
However, I hope that your Lordships will recognise that there are some complex issues to be considered here. We shall need to look into these in a great deal more detail before we can say whether it would be appropriate or possible to meet the ex-servicemen's request. But, again, I can assure your Lordships that we shall give this the most careful consideration.
I turn now to the matter of the entry endorsement—a key point raised throughout this debate. The request has been made by the Legislative Council that the BN(O) passport should carry an endorsement making it clear that visitors to this country do not need an entry certificate. We have considerable sympathy with the concern which this proposal reflects. Of course we want to make clear that people from Hong Kong are welcome to visit this country. That has always been so, and I hope that it will always be the case. As I have said, it is a fact that an entry certificate is not required for such visits. An entry certificate is a service to visitors to help them establish their position before travelling.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted from the Economist about the matter of visas and entry to the United States of America. I emphasise again that visitors from Hong Kong are welcome here. Their position is certainly no worse than it is when they visit the United States of America. Indeed, unlike the United States of America they do not need a visa to visit this country; but they may, if they wish, obtain an entry certificate to facilitate their arrival. Of course immigration officers have to satisfy themselves that someone is a bona fide visitor. If the noble Lord is aware of any particular difficulty—and he did not indicate this in his speech—I hope that he will write to me, and I shall certainly ensure that the matter is investigated.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that courtesy, but in another place several Members drew attention to what they called

103
the hassling of Hong Kong businessmen, and so on. That was a fundamental point of the article in the Economist. It seems peculiar if everybody is wrong and the Home Office is right.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the matter, but I am not aware of any particular cases. If anyone knows of any particular cases, then if we can have the details they can be followed through. However, it is impossible to do so without knowing the details.
Returning to the point about endorsement, a simple endorsement in the passport on the lines suggested by the Legislative Council could, if we are not careful, give a misleading impression about a traveller's position in relation to the immigration rules, and we do not want to create misunderstanding and make travel more difficult. We have noted the statement made by the Legislative Council that it is not seeking exemption from the United Kingdom's normal immigration rules and formalities. We understand that, but we must ensure that individuals now or in the future are not misled into believing that the suggested endorsement would give them such exemption.
I hope it will be quite clear from what I have said that the Government have taken the point fully on board. This issue was considered in some detail in the debate in another place last week. Since then some further thought has been given to this matter, and in the light of what your Lordships have said I can say that we shall do our best to find an acceptable formula.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the noble Lord is finishing on that point, could he address himself to the question of how the Americans managed to issue the multiple re-entry visa which is valid for the whole of the currency of a passport, where this does not, as I understand it, exempt a person from the immigration control laws of the United States, and no one suspects that it does?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in his intervention the noble Lord has just beaten me to the next note to which I was going to refer in answering that point. Multiple visit entry clearances of limited validity are already available for business visitors. This facility is not currently available to ordinary visitors and there are no plans for extending these arrangements generally. However, I note the noble Lord's comments on this, and I shall pass them to my right honourable friend for his consideration. I hope that that at least gives him something of an assurance on the matter.
I turn now to the question of international acceptability of BN(O) passports, a point again raised throughout the debate. A number of your Lordships have referred to the need to ensure that holders of these passports will enjoy the same freedom of travel as is currently enjoyed by BDTC passport holders. The freedom to travel is a matter of considerable importance to the people of Hong Kong. The Government will do all that they can to ensure that BN(O) passport holders enjoy the same access to other countries as is enjoyed at present by BDTC passport holders.
104
The importance we attach to this is one reason why we are introducing the new status at such an early date, in order to give immigration officers in third countries 10 years to get used to its endorsement in passports. We shall explain the new status and the new passport endorsements to third countries once the order is in place and before passports showing the new status are introduced in July 1987.
Given the clear indication of right of abode to be included in the passport guaranteeing the returnability of BN(O)s to Hong Kong, I can see no reason for third countries to introduce different restrictions on entry of BN(O) passport holders from those which apply to BDTC passport holders. I believe that those steps should lead to the unfettered right of access which my noble friend Lord Geddes so earnestly desires. In my opening remarks I referred to Australia, the United States and to Europe as well.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and my noble friend Lady Vickers raised the matter of Vietnamese refugees. The population of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong has now fallen from the 11,000 quoted by the right reverend Prelate to a little over 9,000 as a result of the efforts made to resettle them. Her Majesty's Government have recently agreed to take up to 500 more refugees from the camps. We are working actively to persuade other countries to do more. It is certainly our hope that this problem will have been solved long before 1997. It is right to say that we are continuing to raise the issue with other governments, both directly and in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and have received some encouraging responses from a number of countries.
On the question of right of abode in the Hong Kong ordinance, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Lord is right; the Hong Kong ordinance does not at present use the term "right of abode". It provides equivalent rights under other terminology. But I understand that the Hong Kong Government intend to amend the ordinance so as to include appropriate references to right of abode.
My noble friend Lady Vickers raised the question of the immigration status of students. Understandably, that is an important matter. Like others coming to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, students do not require entry clearance, although they may obtain this in advance if they wish. These arrangements, which currently apply to BDTCs, will be precisely the same for BN(O)s. As now, students from Hong Kong will continue to be welcome in this country.
My noble friend Lord Geddes asked two questions about passports. He asked why it would not be possible to hold a BN(O) passport and a BDTC passport. He went on to ask a further question on paragraph 4(3) of the draft order. I shall have to find my words very carefully here, but we do not believe that it should be necessary for a BDTC in Hong Kong to retain his BDTC nationality and his passport, and at the same time become a BN(O) and hold that passport. Citizens in Hong Kong will be at no advantage in holding both passports, and it would make it easier for others to abuse the situation. The BN(O) passport is different from others because it gives an absolute entitlement. We agreed with the Hong Kong

105
Government that in those circumstances people in Hong Kong should have the choice but should not carry both at the same time.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Rather than take up the time of your Lordships' House at this hour, I wonder whether he would write to me as to what the present position would be if, having elected to hold a BN(O) passport, the person concerned who, if I have understood my noble friend correctly, remains a British Dependent Territory Citizen (albeit he does not have a British Dependent Territory Citizen passport at that stage) then wishes to revert from his BN(O) passport holding to the BDTC passport holding before 1997. Can my noble friend perhaps write to me on that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly think I shall have to write to my noble friend. I cannot respond to that question now, but I shall note it and let him know as soon as possible. I hope I have clarified the point on paragraph 4(3), but I shall study my noble friend's remarks on that and write to him on that, too.
I am conscious that other matters will have been raised in tonight's debate, but in conclusion may I say that the Government are committed to ensuring the success of the Sino-British agreement. We believe it is a good agreement and it is up to all of us to make it work. This will be our aim in the years ahead to 1997. The draft Order in Council is a keystone in the building of that agreement. We shall, as I have promised, study with care all the views expressed by your Lordships today and by the people of Hong Kong. Having done so, we shall invite your Lordships to approve the draft of a nationality order which we hope to lay before Easter.
My Lords, if there are other points which I have not covered and which I can usefully answer by letter, I shall certainly do so. This has been a useful debate; it has been a help to all of us for the future. As I have said, I shall take careful note of all that has been said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Alcoholics Anonymous (Dispositions) Bill [H.L.]
Blyth Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [H.L.]
Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [H.L.]
Bromborough Dock Bill [H.L.]
County of Cleveland Bill [H.L.]
Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
Exeter City Council Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Gull Island Protection Bill [H.L.]
Harrogate Bogs Field etc. Bill [H.L.]
London Underground (Goodge Street) Bill [H.L.]
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Mid Glamorgan County Council Bill [H.L.]
Plymouth City Council Bill [H.L.]
Port of Fosdyke Bill [H.L.]
River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
York City Council Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before ten o'clock.