Lords Sitting of 21 June 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford): The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

Sizewell C Reactor: Public Inquiry Proposal
2.32 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a public inquiry will be held into the proposed building of the Sizewell C reactor and, if so, what will be its terms of reference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has directed the CEGB to advertise its application for his consent to construct a second PWR nuclear power station at Sizewell. Until the response to the advertisements is known it is too early to say whether a public inquiry will be necessary or what matters are likely to be relevant to my right honourable friend's consideration of the application.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether it is the case that the CEGB's application will be made on Friday of this week and that only eight weeks will be allowed for objections to be addressed to the local district council? Can she also tell the House whether there is any firm intention of holding a public inquiry before any final decision is taken on Sizewell C, in the same way as at Hinkley and in the case of the previous Sizewell plant?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the application from the CEGB in respect of Sizewell C was made on 14th June 1989. The Secretary of State, who has a statutory obligation to give a period of at least 21 days in which objections can be made to him, has indicated that he will allow a period of three months for objections to be made. As the noble Lord will no doubt be aware, the Secretary of State will have a statutory obligation to call for a public inquiry if either of the relevant local planning authorities objects to the Sizewell C application. Even in the event that local planning authorities do not object, the Secretary of State still has the
216
discretionary power to call for a public inquiry to be heard in the light of all the other objections received.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what will happen after privatisation? Are we to assume that Sizewell C, as a project, will be passed over to National Power? Is it not the case that after privatisation National Power will be under an obligation under the legislation to provide a certain amount of nuclear plant capacity in order to satisfy the non-fossil fuel quota which we have been discussing in Committee? If that is the case, what will the public inquiry be about? It cannot be about whether or not there should be a plant. It cannot look at any of the options. What will it be about? Will it just be about local and environmental planning matters?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, it is true that the obligation to proceed with the construction of the Sizewell C plant will pass to National Power after privatisation. The matters before the inquiry will depend, as always, on the objections which are raised. Until we know what those objections are it is not possible to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, exactly what matters would be discussed at a public inquiry.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will not the principal matter to be considered at the inquiry be whether the site proposed for the reactor is in every way suitable?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Obviously that is a major consideration. It has to comply with the requirements of Section 34 of the Electricity Act 1957. However, as I have said, the inquiry will also take into account the objections which are made by registered objectors in the period allowed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but is she not aware that the Hinkley C inquiry covers a much wider range of issues than whether the site is the right one in the circumstances? It covers the question of whether there should be a nuclear plant anywhere in the United Kingdom at this time, given our power requirements. Am I right in understanding that if the non-fossil fuel quota is written into the Bill as at present drafted that will no longer be a subject which can be discussed by a public inquiry?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is jumping to conclusions. Certainly there will be a non-fossil fuel obligation which will require the supply companies to use a certain amount of non-fossil fuel. That will be substantially nuclear but may be provided from other renewables. Unfortunately from the Government's point of view, there is no foregone conclusion that that will embrace the fourth of the projected PWR plants. There are many other possibilities for nuclear generation if it is borne in mind that our aim is to cover the gap that would be left by the phasing out of the Magnox stations by the beginning of the next century.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, whatever commitments may follow the so-called obligation, local authorities in the areas concerned will still have powers to give their views as to what should happen in the development of the site?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. That is part of the statutory obligation imposed on the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind the total destruction of the life of a rural county such as Suffolk caused by the building of plants A, B and C in succession? The unfortunate inhabitants of the district of Saxmundham—where my daughter happens to live—have had their communications totally disrupted. Does the noble Baroness agree that while it may make good sense to site a B next to an A to follow it up with a C is asking a lot of the local inhabitants?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Earl. Nevertheless, the application made by the CEGB has been accompanied by an environmental statement, and the environmental information must therefore form part of the considerations which the Secretary of State will take into account.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify her answer to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel? Will it be within the remit of the public inquiry that it would be able to report that the Sizewell C reactor should not be built?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand the rules applying to a public inquiry, the answer must be, "yes, my Lords".
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness satisfied that three months is sufficient for the organisation of objections in the area? Am I not correct in thinking that the period for Wylfa B is four months? Is either three months or four months sufficient for local objections to be organised? Further to the point made by my two noble friends on the Front Bench, would it not be sensible to delay any decision on Sizewell C until the report of the public inquiry at Hinkley is published? Obviously, that has a direct bearing on whether or not there should be a third reactor at Sizewell.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there were a number of supplementaries there. I believe that the time allowed for objections to be registered for Wylfa B and Sizewell C is three months. But, going back in history, in the case of Sizewell B, no time limit was specified for objections because the Government had announced in advance that a public inquiry would be held since that was the first of the four planned PWRs. As for Hinkley C, the time allowed to register objections was four months.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that those of us who are anxious about
218
the environment—presumably, that includes most of the Green Party, at least those who are not members of CND—would like to see modern nuclear power stations brought into operation sooner rather than later? In that way, the fossil fuels that contaminate our atmosphere to such a considerable extent can be progressively reduced and we can become more reliant on nuclear fuel which does not contaminate the atmosphere in any way at all.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are certainly very concerned about the environmental consequences of fossil fuel burning. Nevertheless, we are no less concerned about the need to ensure security of supply. The Government believe that new nuclear capacity is necessary to replace the Magnox stations that will be phased out by the year 2000.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if I may be permitted a second supplementary, will the noble Baroness consult the evidence given to Sub-Committee F by, I believe, a spokesman for Electricité de France? When asked why France has streaked ahead with nuclear power until it is 70 per cent. nuclear, he replied, "Because we do not have committees of inquiry like Sizewell B".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall certainly note that recommendation and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the planning aspect of this public inquiry is sufficient to deal with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether the reactor should be built, and the environmental question raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, the relevant planning regulations come under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 with respect to deemed planning consent. As I have said, the environmental factors are now required as a result of the European Community directive on environmental impact. The environmental statement has already been made, has accompanied the application and will be published.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will answer the second question that I asked her, which I am sure that she forgot. Will any decision be made on Sizewell C before the report on Hinkley is published?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the noble Lord asked a variety of supplementaries on the previous occasion. It is too soon to say. The Hinkley C inquiry is certainly not completed. I think that it is unlikely that the report will be received within the three-month period, although there is always likely to be a time lag between the end of the three-month period and the start of the new inquiry for processing objections. I can give the noble Lord no assurance that there will be no public inquiry before the Hinkley C report has been received.

Palestinian Casualties and Medical Aid
2.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many children have been killed or injured by shooting or beating in occupied Palestine since the start of the intifada; what medical facilities have been available; and whether they will support the work of Medical Aid for Palestine.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, precise statistics are not available, but we estimate that over 90 children have been killed and over 20,000 injured by shooting or beating since the intifada began. Medical facilities in the occupied territories include Israeli Government hospitals, private hospitals and clinics, and United Nations relief and work agency clinics in the refugee camps. We are currently considering whether to give financial support to the work of Medical Aid for Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fact that action is being considered is very welcome and that help for the work of that admirable charity would encourage it a great deal? Is he further aware that it has won worldwide respect for the courage and good spirit of its doctors and staff?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is pleased with the bit of information that I have been able to give him. Certainly, that excellent organisation has some very promising ideas. There are one or two difficulties over details, but those are being looked at. I very much welcome the noble Lord's words.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether those tragic and appalling events were discussed when Mr. Shamir was here last month and whether any proposals were made which might bring them to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot say whether that particular matter was discussed, but the whole problem was certainly discussed when Mr. Shamir was here. So far as his visit is concerned, it confirmed our good relations with Israel. The talks comprised thorough discussion of the Arab-Israeli dispute and other regional issues and bilateral questions. We look forward to keeping in close touch with him. But I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord's point was not lost on Mr. Shamir.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, while I recognise the difficulties and tragic circumstances of that conflict, I do not know whether the Minister is now able to put the picture in its right perspective. Can he give any idea of how many Israeli soldiers have died and how many Israeli civilians have been hurt or killed?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I am unable to give that information, but the facts that I gave in the original Answer are a shocking indictment of Israeli practices.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the PLO has obviously utilised children in its battle against the Israelis? Is it not therefore fair to record that point in any discussion that we have?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am beginning to become fairly familiar with the difficulties on both sides of that difficult issue. That is why we have deplored violence from whatever quarter, and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, to return to the earlier question, as I imagine that no one in the House can object to medical aid, whatever their other views, may we expect an early decision on whether the Government will support Medical Aid for Palestine?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are in close touch with the organisation at the moment. As I indicated in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, there are one or two points to be sorted out. But the noble Lord should be aware that we also support the health projects of many non-government organisations in the occupied territories, including the Order of St. John's clinics in Gaza and the West Bank, Save the Children Fund's physiotherapy training and Oxfam and Save the Children Fund projects for the mentally and physically handicapped. So there is a lot going on in addition to Medical Aid for Palestine.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm the figure given in his original Answer? Have 20,000 children in fact been injured? It seems an extraordinarily high total.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; 20,000 is the figure that we have. That information came from the Palestinian Human Rights Information Centre. Naturally, the figures vary and many cases are never reported. But, as I said, whatever the source or accuracy, they are close enough to be a shocking indictment of what has gone on.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House anything about the representations that we may have made to the United States about military aid for Israel and whether those representations have fallen on receptive ears?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Question is narrowly worded in connection with injuries and deaths to children and the medical aspects. I shall certainly look at that point.

Cigarette Smoking
2.50 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to reverse the increase in cigarette smoking in 1988 in view of the fall in real terms of the price of cigarettes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no firm evidence that there has been an increase in cigarette smoking. Although the Central Statistical Office recently

221
released figures showing a very small increase in consumer expenditure on cigarettes in 1988, this does not necessarily mean that more people have taken up smoking. The price of cigarettes has fallen slightly in real terms since 1986, but it is still far higher than it was in 1980.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for those remarks but is he not disappointed with his own Answer? Was he not looking for a continued steep fall in the use of tobacco? In any event, will he convey to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if there is a campaign to discourage the use of a dangerous drug such as nicotine, it may be a good idea to make sure that it does not become available more cheaply?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not like my figures. As I said, one cannot read too much into a 0·6 per cent. increase in consumer expenditure on cigarettes. It is too close to the margin of error. At the same time as that rise we have seen a fall of 4·6 per cent. in the number of cigarettes released for home consumption by the Customs and Excise. The figures therefore are rather confusing. I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's comments about taxation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that one of the images that may have influenced the way in which people voted in the European elections on Thursday was the Secretary of State for Health refusing to co-operate in a European campaign against smoking which used frank and explicit health warnings? May we assume that the Government will be prepared to think again on this matter as well as the important taxation issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord's ingenuity in bringing in the European elections yet again. We voted against the labelling directive because we felt that it went far beyond what was necessary for single market harmonisation. It is also over-prescriptive and will damage our system of voluntary agreements. However, as the noble Lord knows, we support the health objectives of that measure.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the United Kingdom was once again on its own on this particular issue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, quite honestly I do not see what that has to do with the matter. We were on our own but I have explained why we were on our own.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if there has been an increase in the incidence of smoking, could it be because the 40 per cent. of people who are smokers in this country are becoming fed up with being persecuted by the faddist lobby whose supporters often have habits which are more obnoxious than smoking? Does he agree that a period of silence on this matter might persuade young
222
people that smoking is not such a daring thing to do? Will the noble Lord also confirm that the EC, while tinkering about with notices on cigarette packets, is also subsidising the growing of tobacco by no less a figure than £2,000 million a year? Does he not think that we should take health warnings from the EC with a large pinch of nicotine, if not salt?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and not for myself I do not think that I ought to comment on some of the noble Lord's remarks. He gave the number of smokers as 40 per cent. of the population. That figure has fallen from 40 per cent. in 1978 to 33 per cent. in 1986.

Soft Loan Facility
2.55 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make an early Statement on the future of the soft loan facility in view of its importance to United Kingdom exporters.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the aid and trade provision soft loan facility was launched in 1986 for a five-year period. A mid-term review is currently under way to assess the achievements of the scheme so far and make recommendations for the future, after the present facility has expired. A decision on the future of the scheme is unlikely before the autumn.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this facility provides considerable assistance to British exporters particularly in heavy industry, while at the same time to some extent discharging our aid obligation to third world countries? In view of these circumstances and the fact that British contractors have to be competitive with other countries, can he give some assurance that the Government are likely to continue this facility at least in its present terms?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certainly aware of that view but of course that is something which Ministers will wish to consider as they review all the relevant aspects of the current scheme before reaching a conclusion later in the year.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister name the development criteria used in deciding whether or not to grant soft loan facilities? Are the Government satisfied that the schemes which they fund are those which alleviate the very poorest?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the criteria are fairly complex. I do not think that it would be possible just now to go into the full detail for which the noble Baroness asks. So far as concerns the alleviation of the poorest, the answer is yes, to a very large extent, but there will of course be other methods of providing aid which are particularly targeted on the very poorest conditions. I do not think that one

223
ought to imagine that there is any difficulty in reconciling the ATP with the poorer conditions about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this facility has generated orders to the extent of £400 million for British contractors? Since many of those contracts involve long-term negotiations, does he agree that it would be wise to make an early announcement in that regard so that the client countries as well as the companies competing for those contracts know where they stand?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that point and representations on the commercial and industrial aspects of the scheme have been made by British industry. The views of those who have made representations will be taken into account. The autumn is not too far away.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like, as usual, to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ewart-Biggs and Lady Turner of Camden. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of six minutes and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to 12 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Hong Kong
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to call attention to the problems facing the government and people of Hong Kong and to the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in this matter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it was only 10 days ago that Sir David Wilson addressed the Hong Kong Association here in London. He brought three messages from Hong Kong. First he described the depth of shock felt by Hong Kong citizens as they watched incredulously their television screens on that first day of the massacre in Tiananmen Square and listened hourly to their radios to obtain more news. He then spoke of the dignity of Hong Kong's response as, with good order and with great discipline they marched in their thousands—half a million people marched—to show their solidarity. His last message concerned the people's expectations of support in their present perilous position from the British Government.
Significant as the first two messages were, nevertheless it is on the third one that this debate will focus. It is for that reason that I am very grateful that there are so many speakers who have put down their names who have a great deal of experience and knowledge of Hong Kong. I am also very happy that this debate has attracted a maiden speaker. I look forward to listening to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I should add that when I put down this Motion for debate before the crisis in China erupted little could I foresee the poignant —indeed tragic—significance that the subject would have acquired today.
I should like at the outset of this debate to register my great sympathy—and indeed my feeling of great sorrow—for the people of Hong Kong in their despair and sense of isolation. They had hoped for so much from China after the joint declaration and in one day those hopes were dashed. They now look to Britain to revive their confidence in the future, but so far have found little to relieve those anxieties. Indeed, Britain's standing in the colony—her last colony—is at the present moment at a very low ebb.
Perhaps I may say a few words to give background to our debate today. Starting with China, it is now only too painfully apparent, following the initial massacre, the killings and subsequent stream of arrests, that Deng Xiaoping and China's political leaders are bent on a path of brutal repression. Indeed, the situation is now even more terrifying than the tanks of Tiananmen Square as show trials are shown on television, people just disappear, and families are made to inform on each other. This has shocked countries thoughout the world, and has attracted a great deal of sympathy and concern for the people of Hong Kong preparing as they are for the colony to be handed back to China in 1997. Although it is clear that represssion is the order of the day in China now, there is nevertheless speculation that the leadership struggle is far from over, and it is therefore too early to predict the political path that China may take over the next eight years. It makes decisions regarding Hong Kong's future even more difficult to take at this stage.
Some have called for the cancellation of the Sino-British joint declaration signed in 1984. Fortunately there is now a consensus of established opinion that to leave the colony with no agreement at this point could hardly add to our safety. Next, and most significantly, there is a widespread and justifiable anxiety among the people of Hong Kong regarding their future security should their worst fears be realised and, as the governor described, an Armageddon scenario prevail in the colony. As a result, much pressure is being put on the British Government to take action to safeguard the position of Hong Kong residents by offering a right of abode to holders of British passports. They asked for it as an assurance policy. Much has been said about it. Perhaps I may therefore take one minute to describe the facts of the nationality and immigration position of Hong Kong residents.
Those estimated 3·28 million residents of Hong Kong who are entitled to British dependent territory citizenship were either born in the colony or have a

225
parent or grandparent who were. But of those 3·28 million, only 1·53 million are in possession of British passports at the present time. The other 2·75 million of the Hong Kong population are almost all immigrants, both legal and illegal, from the Chinese mainland. They will become Chinese nationals after 1997. However, in addition there are approximately 10,000 non-Chinese British dependent territory citizens, mainly Asians, who will become effectively stateless after 1997. They are not entitled to become Chinese citizens because they are not of Chinese origin and their BDT passports will not enable them to claim right of abode in the UK. I am sure that the Minister agrees that this minority is the cause of very great concern.
The position on the right of abode at the moment is that only serving or former Crown servants can apply for the right of abode in Britain under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act. While approximately 700 people have made applications under this section since it came into effect, only 59 had been successful by March 1989.
Finally, under the present immigration rules, any non-EC resident with capital assets of a minimum of £ 150,000 may be allowed to reside in this country. This could provide an escape route for a well-off Hong Kong businessman in the event of a crisis in relations with China. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny the press report yesterday that there had been a plan to raise the minimum amount of capital required from £150,000 to £200,000.
In addition, in our long colonial history the case of Hong Kong is unique. First, the colony has no option of independence. Secondly, it is the first time that a territory has been handed over to a Communist regime in which, moreover, the situation has changed so dramatically since signing the treaty that if 1997 were today it could not be observed.
What is to be done? The Government face a dilemma. However, we on these Benches believe very strongly that the Government's first priority is to take action to restore confidence in the colony. If this is not done quickly, the position in Hong Kong will become more precarious, possibly even ungovernable, meaning that the prosperity and stability, on which Beijing's tolerance of the colony ultimately depends, would be undermined. There are many voices from Hong Kong, and indeed also in Britain, which say that the only way to restore confidence is to grant the right of abode in the United Kingdom for the 3·28 million Hong Kong passport holders. At the same time, they maintain that the take up would be low.
However, on the one hand, policies cannot be made on the assumption that they will be unnecessary. On the other, if, after amending our nationality and immigration legislation, a large number of Hong Kong people were driven through a worsening situation at home to take up their new rights, a British Government would be in a difficult position facing their responsibilities not only to the people of this small island but also to those other BDT passport holders outside Hong Kong who have been in the queue to enter Britain as well as the relatives of immigrants who have been waiting to
226
come. Above all, therefore, we do not want Her Majesty's Government to enter into a commitment now, at this early stage, that in the end they would be unable to honour.
As George Walden, a former student at the Hong Kong University and diplomat in Beijing wrote in the Independent,
"With China in turmoil it is the worst possible moment to let British policy swing in the gale of events".
For the present time, in order to bolster the confidence in Hong Kong, to relieve pressure, and to help move things forward in the colony, we ask the Government to do the following. First, we ask them to reiterate Britain's unequivocal condemnation of the violent oppression and reign of terror in China and thereby ensure that the colony is left in no doubt as to Britain's view of the Beijing Government.
Secondly, we welcome the Secretary of State's visit to Hong Kong on 1st July, as indeed I believe that he was pressed to do by my right honourable friend Mr. Gerald Kaufman. However, I ask the Minister whether Sir Geoffrey Howe plans a visit to China. In this way he would confirm to the colony that Britain is committing herself to the support of Hong Kong in all the ways possible and within her reach.
Thirdly, will the Government now go further in defining the flexibility mentioned by the Prime Minister on 8th June? She said in another place that the Government were prepared to see whether they can obtain increasing flexibility from the present rules in order to allow an increasing number of people in here under the several different limbs of the immigration rules and the British Nationality Act. Perhaps the Minister will be able to be a little more specific about that now.
Next, from an international viewpoint, we believe that although Britain has a primary responsibility for Hong Kong, Her Majesty's Government should consult with other Commonwealth countries. Some of them, such as Canada and Australia, are better able than Britain to absorb the entry of a considerable number of people. We should also like the Government to consult immediately with our EC partners at the forthcoming Madrid meeting. After 1992—which brings freedom of movement between members states—surely the level of immigration to each country can affect only the other.
I turn to the Basic Law on which negotiations have been suspended, with the resignation of members of the committee in protest at events in Beijing. Although we find that utterly understandable, we now urge that negotiations should resume and the British Government should take a more robust attitude towards ensuring that the Basic Law reflects the joint declaration. There is scope for amending and reinforcing some of the articles, and we hope that that will come about.
With regard to direct elections in the colony, the Labour Party has always advocated that the pace of democratic reform should be accelerated. It is a pity that that was not done earlier. We now ask the Government to give serious consideration to the unanimous view of a legislative council that at least

227
50 per cent. of the council should be directly elected by 1995 or before. However, mindful of the retaliation which a fully democratic system in Hong Kong might draw from the extremists in Peking, we believe that the actual pace of change should be left to the Hong Kong Government and the people.
In speaking of the need to relieve Hong Kong of additional burdens, I should like to mention the Vietnamese boat people. It is a heartbreaking problem which so far has confounded the international community. It has imposed a heavy cost on Hong Kong. The difficulties in resettling the refugees gives an indication of the kind of problem which will be caused by mass immigration from Hong Kong in the event of a crisis concerning the handover to China.
By 10th June this year 42,766 boat people had arrived in Hong Kong, half of them being under the age of 20. It is a migration of families. The colony is no longer able to find sufficient space to put new camps. It should be remembered that Hong Kong has a population density of over 5,000 people per square kilometre compared with 230 in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, since 1980 offers of resettlement from other countries have steadily fallen. For example, in 1988 over 18,000 Vietnamese arrived in Hong Kong and fewer than 3,000 left for resettlement.
On 13th and 14th June the crisis was discussed at a Geneva conference. The decision was taken that the UNHCR should agree a programme of voluntary repatriation. Will the Minister say whether he believes that the agency has been given enough time and resources to work out a plan to resolve such an enormous problem? Will he also give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will press for an internationally agreed solution involving United Nations member states to receive genuine political refugees; and to move forward towards drawing Vietnam back into the international community and establishing aid programmes with that country?
It must be of benefit to gain the participation of Vietnam both to prevent departures as well as to accept the repatriation of the economic refugees. However, we on these Benches are most concerned about the prospect of forced repatriation towards which the Government appear to be leaning.
Hong Kong is our last colony and in many ways it is the most successful. The purpose of the debate is to express to the people of Hong Kong the concern of this House. It is also to demand an assurance from the Government that they will genuinely do everything within their powers to safeguard Hong Kong's interests in the interim period to 1997 in order to bring Britain's long history as a colonial power to an honourable close. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am fully aware of the great privilege accorded to me in making my maiden speech in this historic House. I trust that I shall not overstep the boundaries of convention which bind maiden speakers, but I share with the noble Baroness her concern for the future of the people and territory of Hong Kong.
228
In December 1984, during the debate on the joint agreement with China, my great friend Lord Birkenhead made his maiden speech. Sadly, Robin Birkenhead is now dead but I should like to remind your Lordships of his words. On that occasion he said:
"we do not have to live, except in our consciences, with the consequences of this agreement; the people of Hong Kong do. Many of them have risked their lives and abandoned everything to escape from Communism. One cannot possibly expect enthusiasm at the prospect of being handed back to a Communist power, however many safeguards are built into their return".—[Official Report, 10/12/84; col. 32.]
That was four and a half years ago and today we must address ourselves urgently to the same question.
Appalling as were the recent events in Peking, they should not have come as a surprise. There had already been a dress rehearsal in Tibet for the brutalities committed in Tiananmen Square. On at least four separate occasions during the past three years—and most recently in March of this year—Chinese troops and police opened fire on and killed unarmed demonstrators. That happened in spite of the fact that freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of demonstration are protected under Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. But to its shame the world ignored the warnings from Tibet until minds were wonderfully concentrated by the events on 3rd and 4th June. If the mask had slipped in Tibet, it has now been ripped away and the face of totalitarian China has been exposed.
That is the power to which we are to hand over Hong Kong and with no more guarantee than the hope that China will abide by the joint agreement. gut after the experience of the past three weeks the people of Hong Kong need more than hope to persuade them that they are not to be delivered defenceless to the mercies of the People's Liberation Army. They need the assurance that if the worst comes to the worst they have in the last resort somewhere to go; an alternative to the bullet and the confession.
Whereas under the process of decolonisation other Crown colonies were led to or took the path to independence, as the noble Baroness has said, that option was denied to Hong Kong. The right of domicile in the United Kingdom was progressively removed between 1962 and 1981 under the Commonwealth Immigration Act and its subsequent amendments.
Over the past three weeks the people of Hong Kong have experienced kaleidoscopic emotions: first, of pride and happiness for their fellow countrymen in China as the prospect of greater freedom rose before them; then of anger, shock and compassion; and, finally, of apprehension and fear that what happened in China and Tibet today would happen tomorrow in Hong Kong.
What is now needed to restore the confidence of Hong Kong is the recognition that we have certain inescapable obligations and that the necessary steps will be taken to meet them. Speedier progress to democratic government, yes; a Bill of Rights, yes. However, they are the icing and what is needed is the cake. They can be no substitute for the fundamental need for an ultimate sanctuary.

229
The course advocated by the present Governor, Sir David Wilson, is that we should grant full British passports to the 1·25 million people who currently hold British National (Overseas) passports and to the further 2 million people who are eligible to hold them. I do not believe that such a generous step would mean an unmanageable influx of immigrants from Hong Kong. Their lives are in Hong Kong and they would wish to continue to live there. Paradoxically, the assurance that people could leave would have the effect of encouraging them to stay, for a prison to which you have the key is no longer a prison.
For my part, I do not believe it quite necessary to go so far as to give immediate right of abode to those 3·25 million who are potentialy eligible in Hong Kong. Certainly those most at risk should have that right and I urge the Government substantially to increase the degree of flexibility in awarding full British passports.
If Portugal with its smaller population can give to over 100,000 of the citizens of Macao the right of abode in the EC, we can surely give several hundred thousand passports to the people of Hong Kong. I mention the EC because of course by 1992 a British passport will also be a passport to Europe and not all the Hong Kong people will wish to make their home here in the United Kingdom.
The numbers may seem daunting but this Government have never shirked a challenge. If France has absorbed nearly 2 million immigrants from its overseas territories, we can surely do no less for our subjects in far more deserving circumstances. If Europe's population is increased by a maximum of 1 per cent., that is a tiny price to pay for saving a brave nation from the worst horrors of communism.
I do not say that Armageddon is coming. However, I say that if it does come we should be prepared. I urge the Government to take the decisions which will satisfy both our honour and our responsibility.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, from the reception given by the House to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, I am sure that your Lordships will want me to congratulate him on a speech which was both elequent and fell within the conventions of the House. I hope that he will forgive me if my appreciation is somewhat abbreviated by the fact that I have only six minutes in which to speak. That brevity in no way represents a lack of sincerity in the congratulations which I wish to convey.
The subject which we are discussing today is not simple. It requires rather careful and intricate argument. In the time at my disposal I shall concentrate on the central issue of what we are to do for the people of Hong Kong in order to provide them with the assurances which they justly demand for their lives and liberties in the future. If what I say is said in rather crude language, that is simply because there is not the time or the space in which to set the matter forth in all its complexity.
230
I am one of those who had argued that in this country we were under a moral obligation to offer those people in Hong Kong with British passports an unrestricted right of abode in this country. That view was based on a number of assumptions: first, that the Chinese Government would fulfil their obligations; secondly, that the negotiations on the Basic Law would reach a satisfactory conclusion—an assumption which led one to conclude that, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, indicated, relatively few would wish to take up the option to settle in this country. I believed that, by providing that right, we should stem the drain of immigration from Hong Kong which is so serious for its economy.
The events which have been and are taking place in China which were so eloquently described by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, make one apt to face the fact that some of those assumptions which I and others made have to be called in question. Matters in China are bad and may become worse. We must face the possibility of what the Foreign Secretary calls "a cataclysmic situation" and what the governor calls "Armageddon", or what might be called the worst possible case. It is in such circumstances that an insurance policy is so necessary because in the worst possible case it is conceivable that there may be a mass exodus.
In those situations I do not believe that it is reasonable for the British Government to give an undertaking which, in point of fact, they would be unlikely in the event to be able to fulfil. I do not believe that it is reasonable for this country to undertake that in those circumstances it could accept such numbers. Yet, it is against those very circumstances that an insurance policy is required; hence the demand by the Hong Kong Chinese that their lives and liberties should be safeguarded.
The Prime Minister has suggested that our response should be flexible. Attempts which have been made to get a definition of that flexibility have proved fruitless. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that flexibility must mean generosity and must mean including more people within the categories of those who can be accepted within this country in the immediate future. It must also not be allowed to be simply a question of money. Public service, intellectual distinction and industrial and entrepreneurial skills must all be regarded as qualifications. It must not be money and only money which is the criterion.
The fact is that in the worst possible case, in face of a mass exodus, it is possible to conceive of only one solution; that must be an international solution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, suggested. It seems to me a matter of urgency that we should raise this issue with the EC at the summit, with the Commonwealth and with other interested parties at the earliest possible opportunity, so as to prepare a plan which can safeguard and provide the assurances to the people of Hong Kong which they rightly and legitimately demand.
At the same time, we must be prepared to set an example in the numbers and the categories which we are prepared to take. Only by providing such a safeguard can we provide the confidence that the inhabitants of Hong Kong are rightly demanding

231
and on which the maintenance of the prosperity of Hong Kong depends. On that prosperity depends the leverage that we can exercise to ensure a reasonable Chinese treatment of Hong Kong in the long run.
I cannot say more without encroaching on the time of other speakers but I hope that we shall receive from the Government a more positive response to this situation than we have had hitherto.
3.28 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on his admirable maiden speech. I am very much in accord with his sentiments.
There is some difficulty about the time in speaking in this debate. However, I should like first to say that to overcome the shock of the terrible events in Peking, a great deal needs to be done by the Chinese Government themselves, by the British Government and by the Chinese and British Governments acting together. One way or another, implementation of the joint declaration through the Basic Law will have to be, as the Foreign Secretary said, fortified and buttressed to stand up to the new pressure of credibility under which it is suffering.
In the time available I cannot go into all the details as I should like to do. However, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on her admirable introduction to this highly topical debate. I shall confine myself only to the demand of Hong Kong people that we boost their failed confidence by a guarantee of an alternative home—the same theme concentrated on by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, although he reached a slightly different conclusion.
There seem to be three levels of responsibility which we should distinguish. There is the Armageddon scenario. That involves mass flight. I do not think we need spend much time on that. I am sure that it is common ground that in such a circumstance the British Government of the day would have to take the lead in the huge international operation which would be necessary. There is nothing that can be done about that now, other than to say so.
There is the second level, which I think is much the most difficult: the smaller number of British nationals in Hong Kong and their demand for recovery of their rights of entry and abode—now called British citizenship—which was lost in 1962. This has now emerged as, I believe, the key, crucial issue. I now believe, and I have not thought this previously, that without satisfaction on this issue faith in the whole enterprise of Hong Kong is liable to fail. It will fail through the uncertainty, disillusion, emigration or preoccupation with emigration, of the people who would otherwise make the Hong Kong of the future. Of course, commercial confidence and support would ebb away with them.
The decisive solution would be to amend the British Nationality Act to provide Hong Kong British nationals with British citizenship. The object of doing that would be an insurance to encourage them to stay at their work in Hong Kong, as most
232
wish to do. In the past I have asked for a home of last resort. Others have asked for the right of entry or the right of abode. It all comes down to the same thing in the end—citizenship. To grant that would be the greatest contribution that the British Government could make to the success of their hitherto very successful policy in Hong Kong. Of course I realise the difficulty, but we should not be outfaced by the numbers. The figure of 3 million potential British nationals is unrealistic. The governor said that at present there are only 1·2 million holders of British passports and only a proportion of those are potential emigrants. Moreover, with the Act amended to give these people citizenship, the freedom of movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome would apply.
I accept that this is a big problem but we have our friends in the Commonwealth and I suggest—like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—that we should now start discussions with our partners in the EC and with the potential host countries of the Commonwealth, as well as with the leaders in Hong Kong. With such a group we should be able to come up with a solution, provided we give a clear lead and a clear commitment to take many of these people. However, time is of the essence. These objectives will take a long time to fulfil, and within two years from now there will be only six years to the passage of sovereignty.
The British Nationality Act also provides for flexibility, as do the immigration rules; and yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that the Government are looking at what could be done under them. That, of course, is extremely welcome and I hope that early progress can be made. Nevertheless, I do not think that either morally or practically it offers an alternative to the wider arrangements that I have suggested, though it is some action that we could proceed with now.
In reaction to what has happened in Peking I hope that I have not exaggerated the problem or unnecessarily talked down the bright prospects of Hong Kong as we saw them two months ago. I believe the problem is real and urgent. If the solution I have suggested is judged to be unrealistic I will listen with great interest to what your Lordships have to say in criticism; but I hope that a constructive alternative will be offered because this problem will not wait.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing this important debate today and also by congratulating my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on his maiden speech.
This debate comes almost exactly one year since we last debated Hong Kong and it is difficult to overstate the change in the situation since that occasion. We have all been appalled by the actions of the Chinese Government over the treatment of the peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square, and no one can ever forget the spectacle on our television screens of the Chinese army literally crushing students who were peacefully trying to express their point of view. We are horrified at the death penalties

233
carried out, with more unquestionably to come. Those actions have shocked and appalled the entire world. I express for everyone, I am sure, our deepest sympathy and understanding for the very real concerns of the people of Hong Kong.
Arising from that dreadful background it is all the more important to consider carefully what the reaction of Her Majesty's Government should be to this issue of Hong Kong. I start by placing on record my support for my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and the measures that he has already taken against China: a ban on arms sales; a suspension of all scheduled exchanges between Britain and China; a suspension of the visit by the Prince and Princess of Wales; and suspension of all high-level military contacts. I also think that we greatly benefit from my right honourable friend's wise counsel on the situation in Hong Kong and his unwillingness, in my view quite properly, to be pushed precipitously into actions which in many cases have not been fully thought through.
I am glad that my right honourable and learned friend is to visit Hong Kong shortly. He can then judge for himself the situation on the ground and, above all, can assure the people of Hong Kong that we shall fulfil our obligations and responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong up to 1997. I also place on record my support for the governor, Sir David Wilson, in these difficult times and for the excellent job that he is doing.
What, then, should we do? The fact is that the historic and geographical realities of the situation of Hong Kong remain. Any viable future for Hong Kong must be dependent upon its co-operation and coexistence with China. Nothing can alter those facts, disagreeable though they may be. Under the lease, 92 per cent. of Hong Kong reverts to China in 1997. I recall, as a Foreign Office Minister, commending to your Lordships the Hong Kong agreement—the Sino-British Agreement on Hong Kong. I believe it to be a good agreement. Some people have suggested that we should either scrap it or try to renogotiate it. I believe that that would be a great mistake. We want to see it implemented. Nor is there any evidence that if we did reopen negotiations we would get a better agreement.
One further positive point remains. It is in China's long-term interests to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. As all speakers have said, we must try to keep up that confidence in Hong Kong. I welcome the proposals that have been made for an increase in democracy. I also welcome the fact that the Hong Kong police force has been strengthened under the control of the Hong Kong Government. I hope that on the tragic situation of the Vietnamese refugees there will be some improvement arising from the discussions at Geneva. That seems to be the case.
Attention has focused on the question of whether, given the changed situation, we should give an undertaking of the right of abode to some 3·25 million people from Hong Kong. It is a matter of much regret to me that I have not been able to speak, before this debate, to Dame Lydia Dunn, who I
234
know is in London, and to hear, first hand, her concerns. Of course we all understand their fears. Who could not? I shall therefore listen with great interest to what my noble friend the Minister has to say this afternoon on the point raised about a further examination, particularly under the nationality Acts, of the position of Crown servants and key business people. I was also interested to read what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place yesterday, when she referred to increased flexibility under the nationality Acts. Both statements I welcome, and I hope that my noble friend can say something further on this matter.
On the wider issue of whether or not we should give a right of abode to the 3·25 million people in Hong Kong I would like to expand further, but time does not allow. But I say this: it is an immensely difficult issue. The British Parliament must not only consider its obligations to the people of Hong Kong, real and important as those are, but also its obligations to the people of the United Kingdom. Indeed, as the representatives in another place are elected to represent the people of the United Kingdom, their first duty must be to the people whom they represent. In answering this question I believe it must be clear that Britain could not guarantee a right of abode to all these people.
I believe there is a danger as regards the insurance argument because no government could make that commitment without being prepared to make arrangements to receive for right of abode 3·25 million people. It really would not be fair to the people of Hong Kong, let alone to the people in this country, to pretend otherwise. Those who have to take responsibility often have to say things that they would rather not say and that are very painful and disagreeable. I believe that this is one instance of them. That said, we have all referred to what is called the Armageddon situation. We must profoundly hope and pray that it does not happen. From what my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, I recognise that should that situation arise we shall seek the help of the rest of the world in trying to resolve what will be not only a desperately tragic situation for Hong Kong, but a tragedy for the whole world.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, had I just a month ago started my notes for today's most valuable and timely debate with the phrase "whilst there is nothing new or original to add" it would have been largely true though the strength of the argument for the BDTC and the BN(O) right of abode in the United Kingdom would not have been the less. Now, almost daily, there is something new. Even today we have received the appalling information that three Shanghaiese have been executed for setting fire to the train that had killed their companions. That is something new, and it adds to the very real concern expressed in Hong Kong regarding the actions of the authorities in the PRC.
We have heard all the arguments. I suppose that the two principal ones are, first, that 1997 is still eight years away; the second being that the United

235
Kingdom cannot possibly absorb three-plus-million Hong Kong Chinese "just like that". But what if the United Kingdom and effectively all of its population were to be returned, albeit with quite tolerable paper assurances, in eight years' time to an authority from whom over the previous 40 years most of us, or our parents, had fled? Would not we want to know that, if the proverbial push comes to the Sino-shove, we had a haven to which we could escape? We take our full British nationality for granted. Are we happy at the thought of going down in history as the "we are in the boat, shove off" brigade?
As I have said in your Lordships' House on many occasions, Hong Kong has one asset only—and a mighty one that is—which is its people. Without its people having full confidence to remain in Hong Kong, Hong Kong is at best—and I repeat "at best"—nothing. I agree that the arrival of three-plus-million Hong Kong Chinese over a short time period would cause just as many problems in the United Kingdom as that exodus would cause in Hong Kong. But it would not happen. I cannot prove that statement and nor indeed can anyone else prove it. But I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that it is true.
I am delighted that Dame Lydia Dunn is listening to this debate today. She more than any, with her leadership of OMELCO in Hong Kong, is championing this cause. The British Government and the British people have such a burden of responsibility—legal, moral and practical—to Hong Kong that they must take the gamble, or in the words of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke in his excellent maiden speech, take up the challenge and grant at the very minimum perpetual and indefinite right of entry to the United Kindom for all Hong Kong BDTC and BN(O) passport holders. That would give them the right to earn full British nationality under the rules of domicile without, as I understand it, the necessity to amend the British Nationality Act 1981.
It really is the very least that we can do and, as has been said already this afternoon, we must do it now, before the apparently inexhaustible patience of Hong Kong finally evaporates, and with it the all-important confidence of its people.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, if there is for Hong Kong a silver lining to the ominous cloud that hangs over China, it is that the people of this country can now be seen by the people of Hong Kong to have woken up to their responsibilities for what may happen there after 1997 instead of perhaps giving the impression that the agreement signed with China enabled them to forget some of the intense human problems which might arise when sovereignty is due to pass. I believe that every noble Lord in this House will agree that the people of Hong Kong certainly deserve all the understanding and interest that we can muster since their confidence has been so badly shaken in the arrangements that this country has been making for them.
Much of the interest has centred on the question of nationality and right of abode. I do not discount
236
these issues one little bit. As has been said, they are clearly matters of the utmost significance and urgency to Hong Kong's morale and stability as a last resort measure, if nothing else. But as a former Commander British Forces Hong Kong, I would like to concentrate on the steps that might be taken inside Hong Kong, particularly as they affect security. Surely the greatest service that we can do for the people there is to continue to encourage Hong Kong to prosper, with the citizens, by and large, remaining to maintain its success story and not leaving to bring about an untypical failure. Then we should do everything we can in further bilateral negotiations with the rulers of China and with international backing, to ensure that the spirit of that original agreement on true autonomy until the year 2047 is still achieved. We shall be doing the people of Hong Kong no service to pretend that, because of harrowing events in Peking in 1989, the longer-term future can no longer lie within the orbit of mainland China.
But, equally, no one in their senses can imagine, without more adequate guarantees on the Basic Law and individual rights than we have at the moment, that we could commit over 5 million people to the tender mercies that we saw perpetrated in Tiananmen Square. So we have a considerable job to do to convince Hong Kong that the arrangements being made will provide adequate safeguards within the original spirit of that agreement. To achieve this could it not be that we have advantages that we did not have before? In the past, when negotiating with the Chinese, we convinced ourselves that we had considerably fewer cards to play than they did. But now I suggest that the situation may have changed. The Chinese Government, instead of basking in the goodwill of the international community, are generally condemned. They have lost face and, after the first frenzy of riding roughshod to maintain the power of the existing leadership, they will find that a Pandora's Box has been opened which they can never completely close. They will therefore need friends to help them solve their accumulating problems, otherwise modernisation will be dead for decades.
Therefore our negotiating position should have been strengthened. So cannot now, for instance, the Basic Law which still has a number of ambivalent loopholes, be negotiated, as the noble Baroness said, in a way that will be much more reassuring to the people of Hong Kong? Then there is the question of actually stationing the so-called People's Liberation Army on Hong Kong territory and that must surely be looked at again. From a military point of view, and distances being what they are, it has always seemed quite unnecessary for China actually to garrison Hong Kong which will have its own security force and, with its autonomous status, will be responsible for its own internal security. Very early on in the negotiations it looked as though the Chinese leadership might accede to this point. Therefore it is only right that we should insist on returning to it. After seeing how the PLA dealt with peaceful protest and free speech, nothing could be more guaranteed to destroy confidence and morale in Hong Kong and deter international investment than the prospect of

237
formed bodies of Chinese troops being stationed in Hong Kong itself.
During the period up to 1997 I hope there will be no question of prematurely reducing the garrison or cutting the size of the Gurkha units. The scenarios which could in the interim threaten the stability of Hong Kong are legion, not least the prospect of a greater influx of refugees, not only from Vietnam but from China itself. The Royal Hong Kong Police Force could find itself quite unable to cope without the fullest support of the military. Minimum force has always required maximum numbers, a point seemingly lost on the People's Liberation Army. Moreover, we must be careful to do nothing to indicate any premature weakening of ties with this country or of Britain's resolve to see this thing through to a proper and peaceful conclusion, which is the passing back of sovereignty of a stable going concern, but with the strongest possible guarantees that, for 50 years at least, Hong Kong will co-exist with the rest of mainland China as a separate autonomous area, with the same currency and similar legal rights and freedoms as it possesses at the moment. That was the agreement—no less.
If when the time comes there is no stable central government, or we could not deliver that package with confidence, we must face the fact that all bets might have to be off and we would be honour-bound to do our duty by the people of Hong Kong in whatever way seemed right and appropriate at the time. We should be working out now what that responsbility might entail if Armageddon came, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said in his excellent maiden speech. But first and more optimistically, let us by our deeds in negotiation, the strength with which we play our hand, our leadership, our flexibility and the extent to which we remain actually concerned about and involved in Hong Kong's future seek to reassure its people that we will keep faith with them.
For its part, I hope that Hong Kong will continue to conduct itself with dignity, not interfering outside its borders but confident and fully backed by Britain inside them. Then perhaps common sense and reasonableness in the implementation of the agreement will still prevail, as we always hoped it would.
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness has initiated this highly important and topical debate. I congratulate her on her speech and feel sure that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will give her a sympathetic reply, as he did to me last week in an encouraging Answer in regard to Chinese students in this country. He said that no Chinese national would be required to return to China until the situation there was clarified. I was grateful to him for that statement. It showed the Government's human face and their generosity.
As far as concerns Hong Kong, I was very glad yesterday to attend a meeting with Dame Lydia Dunn, the senior member of the Executive Council, and the Honourable Allen Lee, senior member of the Legislative Council, both highly respected in
238
Hong Kong and here. I have been interested in relations between Hong Kong and the People's Republic for some 25 years—that is to say, since 1963—and more closely since 1977 when I visited Beijing at the time of the return of Deng Xiaoping. That was a time, believe it or not, of euphoric celebration. I also spent some 10 days going round many factories, mainly in the industrial north and the Taching oilfields. Then again in 1984 I was there at the time of the signing of the joint declaration, and on that occasion had many high-tech discussions in the People's Republic as well as in Hong Kong.
When Deng Xiaoping returned, many of us thought that he would liberalise the People's Republic. Never did we imagine the kind of situation occurring as we have seen in the past few weeks, leading to the massacre on 4th June which shocked the whole world. It is also distressing in another way to think how some of the joint ventures and high-tech agreements which we advocated may now in many cases be in a state of limbo. As members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong say: Hong Kong is an economic miracle. It is twice the size of the Isle of Wight yet ranks eleventh in the league of trading nations. It is the largest container port in the world and the largest exporter of watches and radios as well as second in garments and toys. And it is of course one of the leading financial centres of the world with an average per capita income second only to Japan in Asia. It also has a most industrious people.
Although many would like to remain in Hong Kong, it is understandable in the circumstances that many people would like an insurance policy in the form of a second passport so that if the promises of the joint declaration are not kept they will at least have an alternative home. I do not feel that we in Britain should fear that suddenly 3.25 million people will flood into Britain. Many of these will want to continue living in Hong Kong which is their home. Someone has calculated how many Jumbo aircraft would be needed to evacuate 3.25 million people. At a rate of three Jumbos a day it would, I think, take eight years. Of course the immediate flood of refugees will not happen, and any who feel that they must leave, as some have already done, should find jobs in other parts of the Commonwealth as well as in Britain. They have been much welcomed in Canada and in the United States and in other countries of the United Nations. In view of their industriousness they should be welcome in many parts of the world. Am I not right in thinking, like my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, whom we have all congratulated on his admirable speech, and also in view of what the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said, that if in 1992 they hold a British passport they would have access to the other 11 member states of the European Community, where I believe they would also be welcome? I hope that my noble friend can confirm that.
So let us not in Britain be too fearful of what may happen. At all events I hope that more Hong Kong citizens will come here and I hope that an organisation might be set up in which people who would welcome them would also help them to find homes.
3.58 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the manner in which she opened her speech. She must appreciate the wide support she received from different sides of the House. Anyone listening to the debate will know that we as a country and as a House are deeply committed to the welfare of Hong Kong.
I should like to take a slightly wider angle in looking at this issue. Anyone who has been for a time in South-East Asia knows that the Chinese are astonishing people. They have enormous ability. They work hard and are people of great courtesy and cleanliness in their way of living. Secondly, they do not want to return to China. I do not know of any other people who do not want to go home. The Chinese do not. This is a feature unique to them. In some countries it is actually a punishment to send people back to the country from which they came.
China has had a bad century. I do not want to go into detail but one can look back to the days of Sun Yet-sen and the revolution of 1911 to see that the hopes of that time have wholly disappeared. The Chinese have been through a period of war. Eventually they seemed to settle for Communism, in about 1948 or 1949. That has been a failure. They tried two things: they tried the "great leap forward" and then they tried the Cultural Revolution. Mao Tse-tung agreed that it was a complete failure. Now, I am afraid that one must say that Deng Xiaoping is using the situation as a sort of smokescreen to explain their further failures.
Of course we see on television programmes that the Chinese want to enter into international trade agreements; they want the benefit of foreign technology, and so on. However, what we do not hear quite so much about—although, the people of Hong Kong know something of this—is iron bureaucracy, both ruthless and determined, which is really running China, very much, if I may say so, as it did in the days of the emperor. This is an issue which we must tackle. I say "tackle", but it is something at which we must look most closely. Nepotism, corruption and control of thought are the objects to which they are working.
I have not lost heart in the matter. I do not think that all is finished and that we can do nothing about it. I think that we can do something about the matter. That is what really matters. The wording of the treaty which we have made is outstandingly successful. I am amazed at what the Chinese have agreed to; and I am amazed at the skill, if I may say so, of the Foreign Secretary, and also that of the present Governor of Hong Kong. I am amazed that they have managed to achieve this agreement. I believe that this should be our primary effort because it is in the interests of the people of Hong Kong. They do not want to come to this country. Have we thought about what the people of Hong Kong would think living in some of our great cities? They would of course have a life; but it would be a disagreeable life for which they would not care in the least.
We find many factors in this whole issue. Some 20 years ago Chou En-lai said that all nations are entitled to fundamental rights and must not be
240
maltreated. Was that statement cynical, or was that a willing hope in regard to that which he had not succeeded in doing? I am inclined to say that we should not exclude the second consideration. For instance, we find China ratifying the convention against genocide. Yet, two years later, Amnesty International reported that 10,000 people were executed in four months. Was that a wishful act or was it a situation that was out of control? Is that an example of iron bureaucracy working, or is it not?
I do not think that we should lose too much heart over the matter. I shall tell your Lordships why. We would like to help China on its way, and that is something we can do. After all, we have made a worthwhile treaty with China. I think that there is at least a chance that the winds of freedom could blow from Hong Kong into China. We should not exclude that possibility. I believe that if we have confidence in the Chinese Governnment in this regard, it is more likely that they will fulfil absolutely what they have undertaken to do.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was quite right in saying during her speech that the agreement which we signed in 1984 with the Chinese was a good and fair one: that is, on the important assumption that the regime in power in Beijing would continue to be a pragmatic and moderate one which did not renege on its promises.
The crucial Chinese promise was, and is, that Hong Kong's capitalist system and lifestyle will remain unchanged for 50 years after the transfer of power, and that for a like period the socialist system and socialist policies will not be practised there.
That highly unusual, but in the Hong Kong context, very helpful undertaking is summed up in Deng Xiaoping's formula of "one country, two systems". Four years ago, in 1985, I visited Beijing with a small team from Stanford University in California. We had a longish talk with the then Prime Minister of China, Mr. Xao Xiyang. He is of course the same moderate leader who fell foul of his octogenarian colleagues over how to handle the student protests and is apparently about to be disgraced. He, and other senior Chinese officials whom we met made no secret of their belief, and hope, that after 1997, if the people of Hong Kong could be kept in a contented and co-operative mood, the colony would continue to play a key role in China's economy. They had clearly concluded—for good Chinese reasons—that this would be much more likely to happen if they gave the undertaking which they did.
Moreover, it was also apparent to the Chinese that the same formula could one day be helpful in persuading the Taiwanese also to throw in their lot with the mainland. Those two long-term pragmatic and commonsensical considerations are just as valid today as they were then for the Chinese. Therefore I see some grounds for hope in the present situation, although I am not starry-eyed about the matter.
However, we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that on 4th June last, the regime in Beijing

241
was finally provoked into using methods of lawless cruelty against its own young fellow citizens. The massacre of the students has, very understandably, caused the people of Hong Kong to look for reassurance from this country. We are in duty bound to provide it. Indeed, I am sure that there is no disagreement on this point in any quarter of this House. How can we best do so?
Again, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I can see no sensible grounds and no demand that I am aware of in Hong Kong, for us to abrogate or seek to re-negotiate the agreement. Indeed were we to do so, Hong Kong's position could well be impaired, not improved. As we all know, what most Hong Kong people do not now have, and fervently hope to be granted, is the right of abode in Britain. That is not so much because they want to exercise that right now, but because they fear that one day they may desperately need to do so.
In my view there are three considerations we would do well to bear in mind when deciding how to respond to the anxious appeals of which a crescendo is currently reaching us. First and foremost, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs quite rightly told us, Hong Kong's situation is indeed unique. Never before during the whole process of British decolonisation did we plan to hand over a sizeable number of British citizens to an uncertain destiny under foreign rule. So we should not consider ourselves as tied to precedent, or inhibited from developing special solutions to a special problem.
Secondly, on balance Britain has gained by taking in people from abroad, and enabling them to blend their talents and culture with our own. Not perhaps all, but at any rate the large bulk of immigration into this country during my life-time has been a success story of which the immigrants and ourselves can be proud. Thirdly, I believe that we have a special obligation to the young people in Hong Kong; namely, those between the ages of 15 and 25, who stand at the threshold of their careers. Their elders have already lived much of their lives under British rule in conditions of freedom and justice. Rightly or wrongly, the young people—and we have all seen their worried faces on television—fear that after 1997 freedom and justice will be denied them.
I should very much like to see a scheme or an organisation—such as the one suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—brought into being in this instance. It would perhaps be an example of the flexibility which the Government have undertaken to show. By virtue of such a scheme a substantial number of these young people, or perhaps all of them who care to apply—and not on a once-and-for-all-basis, but on an ongoing basis over the next years—would be given the chance of coming to Britain in order to complete their education and to fill their first jobs. They would gain by recovering the hopes of a better life, which many of them now expect to forgo, and we should gain by adding a vigorous, gifted (and incidentally English-speaking) young element to our society. I believe that by encouraging generous private giving by individuals and firms, in order to fund scholarships, for instance, we could add a useful bipartisan element to the
242
scheme. It could also include family hospitality on a nationwide scale. Some such scheme could be made flexible time-wise by phasing, and the incoming numbers could be reviewed and adjusted according to absorbability, into which a special inquiry should be made.
My Lords, as I have said, it is the youngsters in Hong Kong who form a major element in the chorus of dismay that the thought of 1997 is now triggering off. It is clearly in their minds that there is anxiety and fear. It is by easing the plight and reducing the claustrophobia of these young people whose hopes have been so cruelly dashed, that I feel we should now in the first instance proceed.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for enabling us to debate Hong Kong today. I should declare an interest in view of my close association with one of Hong Kong's largest business groups, one controlled by Hong Kong Chinese and one whose commitment to Hong Kong is total.
I should like to comment on only three of the main points, much more ably covered by previous speakers. First, on the moral question, which is loosely called the question of honour: in recent days I have been asked by many noble Lords why we should give to the people of Hong Kong something which we have refused to some of the people from our other colonies. The answer is that our disposal of Hong Kong cannot be compared with our disposal of any other parts of the empire. In all other cases, we have moved towards independence. In this case, we are giving up Hong Kong because our lease of part of the land runs out, and Her Majesty's Government can in no way be criticised for that; but it is the land that is leased, not the Hong Kong people.
Britain has no legal obligation, or moral right, to dispose of the people without taking account of their wishes. We should be conscious that we are handing them over not only to a foreign country but to one from which many themselves and their families are refugees. That is why the British Government have tried so hard to find a formula satisfactory to the people of Hong Kong as well as to Britain and China, and full credit to them. Unfortunately, recent events have caused the Hong Kong people to lose faith in that formula. We cannot salve our consciences merely by pretending that we have no legal choice.
Secondly, I wish to say a word on the issue of democracy. There are many views on how fast it is wise for Hong Kong to move towards democracy. In certain circumstances, too rapid progress could even be counterproductive. However, of one thing I am certain: it is for the Hong Kong people to decide the pace at which they want to move, and it is not for us in Britain to gainsay them. I am therefore delighted that Ministers have committed themselves to give priority to ascertaining the current views of the people of Hong Kong and have indicated that on that issue at least they are prepared to listen.
I now come to the third and by far the most important point upon which I want to comment. Here I speak not for the Hong Kong business

243
community but as one closely involved with it. Clearly, every Hong Kong business wants to keep its executive and workforce in Hong Kong for as long as possible and, it is to be hoped, well beyond 1997. Our group alone has over 50 Chinese managers who already have a right of abode in the United Kingdom. They have had it for years. Not one of them is talking of leaving now. Other firms have a similar experience.
If our other key men go, Hong Kong cannot prosper. Of course, out of self-interest we should not be urging the British Government to give a right of entry to Britain to any of the population if we believed that that would lead to early wholesale emigration. No, the reason that we are so insistent is that we are confronted by a serious situation, not in 1997 but in the immediate future. Many of those most responsible for the success of Hong Kong are looking urgently at whether they should leave now in case they cannot get out later.
Unfortunately, the only insurance policies available today involve moving out of Hong Kong now, for example, to go to Canada to qualify for residence so as to obtain a Canadian passport. That is just what they and we want to avoid. That is why all Hong Kong businessmen urge the Government to provide a safety net now which would allow people to stay. The governor has publicly urged the British Government to take positive steps to restore confidence. Of course it is unreasonable—I wholly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this point—to try to work out a long-term scheme for the whole population within the next few weeks, although that must clearly be the long-term aim, probably in an international context.
I beg my honourable friends to extend a lifeline now as an interim measure to the key people who keep the territory prosperous. In that category I include those with technical, financial and managerial skills. If we do not do so, I fully endorse the view of those who say that we risk an economic crisis, in one or perhaps two years' time, possibly followed by civil disorder, and long before 1997. If by 1997 Hong Kong is no longer a prosperous international centre, the Chinese Government will have no incentive to abide by the joint declaration. The goose will no longer be laying the golden eggs.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest. I am the managing director of a subsidiary of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. I am of course proud to be connected with that group, but the views that I express this afternoon are mine and mine alone.
The recent tragic events in China have focused attention on the problems of Hong Kong, but there has always been an inherent weakness in the arrangements that we made with China because of the tightening of our nationality regulations from the 1960s until 1981. It is that which has made it inevitable that at some time we would continue to debate what has now become the Hong Kong question.
244
I should like to make it clear that I believe that we should grant the right of abode to the Hong Kong people who are qualified. The difficulty that we all see and upon which we have touched this afternoon, is how we underwrite that right. Those against have argued on the grounds of practicality: how can we absorb so many over possibly such a short time? But the question is: will they all come, and what are the probabilities of that being a requirement? Is there not some way to combine pragmatism with our obligations, or, as The Times said today,
"honour and self-interest, can they not go together?".
In terms of pragmatism, perhaps I may quote the words of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in his evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier this year, when he said:
"Our objective then as now has been to secure for Hong Kong the prospect of prosperity and stability on an expanding scale into the future".
I believe that there is a common acceptance of that objective. The reality of the objective is that in the past few years Hong Kong has experienced a great economic growth. But the reality is also that that economic growth will at some time in the future—we do not know when—possibly be placed in jeopardy.
As noble Lords have heard this afternoon, Hong Kong is losing skilled people. Our own organisation is losing its skilled people to Australia and Canada, and I think that the paradox on which my noble friend Lord Derwent touched is that it is the people without the security of right to abode elsewhere who seek that security, while those who have it remain behind. That point has been made many times to me by my Chinese friends in Hong Kong, sometimes quite heatedly in conversation over dinner. Hong Kong's success depends on its people. Their motivation, their confidence and their view of the success of Hong Kong is critical in the future. I have already said that this motivation and confidence are in jeopardy. The people of Hong Kong have a legitimate right to look to us. The Chinese Government, at least publicly, have said that the right to abode is a question for our own Government to resolve, difficult though that resolution may well be for us.
Since the signing of the joint declaration, the people of Hong Kong have seen a number of events taking place. They have seen the Portuguese agreement with China on Macao. They have heard about the French and, on a small scale, Italy, issuing the right of citizenship to Hong Kong Chinese people who work for their banks and industrial concerns in Hong Kong. More important, they have seen how within the Community we are moving towards freedom of movement of people within our own economic area. They see all this in stark contrast to our own existing policy. Even though in the last few days we have seen some movement within the Government, they have seen it in stark contrast to the policy which we have had in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in his excellent maiden speech, and other noble Lords have already mentioned that we should not forget that Hong Kong is different from all our other areas in de-colonisation. There is no question of

245
independence for Hong Kong. If one speaks to the Hong Kong Chinese, they do not even contemplate independence. But there is no choice for the majority of the Hong Kong Chinese; the colony will revert to China in 1997. I believe that this is a unique experience for us.
Having said that, I believe that there are sound reasons for reviewing our policy. These encompass generosity and humanity, questions of legality, morality, obligations, practicality and straightforward expediency. These are all difficult areas for my noble friends in the Government to measure and balance, but they need reviewing for these reasons.
If we do not give a lead, then I believe that two events are likely to follow. One is the slowdown in the economy of Hong Kong which is inextricably linked to the economy of South China and will therefore have a poor effect on China itself. Secondly, if we talk about other countries taking part in any agreement with China or Hong Kong, I believe that where we do not lead and take up our obligations, why should others who have no obligations take up where we fail? I urge my honourable friends in the Government then to give the necessary lead.
4.24 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I rise to put a suggestion: whether it will be of any use, others must judge. What do we all wish to do? We wish to hand over Hong Kong in the best possible state. The people there want to continue with their lives in the splendid manner in which they always have. The Government of China have shown, through many years, one consistent desire only and that is that they do not want just a bit of territory littered with a number of dissident people. They want to receive Hong Kong as a fat and healthy goose, laying golden eggs. They do not want to receive just a dead bird.
Since that is so, it is clearly our duty to carry out the wishes of these people, so far as we can. The difficulty is that the people of Hong Kong have, rather understandably, lost all confidence in the Government of China. Our problem is to give them some confidence: we certainly do not wish to destroy Hong Kong.
If this were a transaction between individuals and not between sovereign states, one could see an answer to the problem. There are many times when somebody has to hand over valuable property to somebody else and finds that, through sudden serious illness or possibly death, the final recipient being a small child, the property cannot be handed over without it being destroyed. In that case, it is invariably necessary to hand the property to trustees.
I suggest that what we should now do is to seek a trusteeship group, under the United Nations, which could sit in, look over our shoulder and possibly take on some functions in the years of the run-up to the handover. I do not have enormous confidence in every single part of the United Nations, but I have far more confidence in any part of the United Nations than I have in the present Government of China. If a group could be put together, it would reassure the Chinese that everything would be in
246
order. It would reassure the people of Hong Kong that everything was being done that could be done, and if it came to any question of there not being a Government of China able to take over, it might be possible to hand over to the trustees for a limited period.
Personally, I do not think that it would come to that because that time is eight years from now. Things are moving very fast in this world; Russia has moved enormously in eight years. The collapse of Communist economies all over the world, including that of China, is going faster and faster, and these events tend to speed up. I believe that within much less than that period of time we shall see a great deal of movement in China. The Government there have even possibly speeded up the process in attempting to switch off the steam of revolt by screwing down the safety valves. That usually leads to rather fast movement shortly afterwards. It is my belief that we shall see a great change in China long before the date that matters. In the meantime, and possibly soon—as noble Lords have said, something needs doing—we should call in all the help that we can get to help reassure the people of Hong Kong so that when the date comes we can hand over in proper form.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for initiating this short debate. I think it is right and fitting that Her Majesty's Opposition should draw your Lordships' attention to this grave issue, in which the honour and integrity of our country are at stake. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on a quite outstanding maiden speech. If I had known what he was going to say I might have kept my seat and shut up, but perhaps I shall say what he said a little more forcefully because mine is not a maiden speech.
Briefly I should like to support those both inside and outside your Lordships' House who believe that a British passport, issued to British citizens in Hong Kong, ought to give those people the right of abode in Britain. As other noble Lords have observed, Hong Kong is not being given independence, and I believe that it is unique among our former colonies. I think we are agreed on that. It is also unique that its people have not been consulted about the sovereignty of the land in which they live. They have no choice in the most fundamental issue of who shall rule them. At present they are part of the leased land on which they live, much as mediaeval serfs were part of their landlords' land. And though they, unlike serfs, are allowed to leave it by the landlord they have no right to go anywhere else, so it appears to come to rather the same thing.
"Britons never shall be slaves" does not apply to them. They are to be handed over in eight years' time to a state in which, as we meet here today, brave young men and women are being persecuted and judicially murdered for the crime of expressing their opinions too openly and forcefully. Even to suggest that we ought to hand over British citizens in such circumstances with their homes, their families,

247
and everything they have, and to lock the door on them with a passport which permits no escape, is a cause of national dishonour and national shame. It is shameful that we should have come to this position. I can only hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again about what they are proposing to do to the honour and good name of this country.
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the debate this afternoon calls attention "to the problems facing the government and people of Hong Kong". Most speakers have concentrated on the two issues that have now acquired a high profile: the right of abode in this country of Hong Kong people with BDTC and BN(O) passports and the extension of democracy in Hong Kong before 1997.
I intend to leave these two subjects for further reflection over the weeks ahead when it becomes clearer what practical dialogue can be achieved with the new leaders in China. It is, however, a time for reappraisal, and I hope we shall hear that the Government are looking closely at the details of the Basic Law to see whether topics need to be opened up for reinspection again during the remaining negotiation period before enactment by the National People's Congress in 1990. I am delighted that my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary is to visit Hong Kong on 1st July.
Today I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another difficult and vexing problem facing the government and people of Hong Kong: the Vietnamese refugees. The boat people have been arriving in ever-increasing numbers since the beginning of March, when the weather conditions began to allow the perilous journey. Most of them are economic migrants from the south and the north of Vietnam. Some are fleeing an oppressive regime, but most a bankrupt country.
More than 42,000, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, are in camps in Hong Kong, having braved the perils of a long journey along the China coast (they call it "coast hopping"), often in open boats, until they reach Hong Kong, the country of first asylum. This concept of the country of first asylum places an immense burden on Hong Kong, an area of high density living. Where can these refugees be housed and contained sometimes for periods of up to six or seven years?
I had the opportunity of visiting Tsham Tsui Po refugee camp in Kowloon earlier this year and saw for myself the cramped conditions in which families have to eat, sleep and multiply without any vestige of privacy. The camps are sad places of wasted lives, broken spirits, exhausted hope. But they are there, and they have to be provided for.
Hong Kong people feel frustrated by this problem, I was told, and, with their own tight control of ethnic Chinese immigration, have no wish to integrate these people into their society. That is also the desire of the boat people themselves, who, in the camp that I visited, living under the flight path of the international airport, dream of getting on a jumbo to California. This is an unwelcome fallout of the war in Vietnam.
248
The government in Hong Kong have, since June 1988, started to classify the boat people into genuine refugees as laid down by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and mere economic migrants. However correct the asylum rules may be, they allow less than 10 per cent. of the current 42,000 to qualify for refugee status. The rest must be repatriated to Vietnam. This makes the disposal problem of genuine refugees more manageable for the rest of the world to accommodate, and success on this front should not be overshadowed by the weight of the numbers remaining.
I was assured by the immigration department in Hong Kong that the screening process would deter the remainder from setting out if they knew that the only alternative would be repatriation to Vietnam. Herein lies the problem. The fewer recognised as refugees who can be taken by other countries, the greater the number who will have to remain in Hong Kong.
The present rate of voluntary repatriation means that the problem will get worse and worse. The screening process has not deterred, the threat of being interned has not deterred, and forced repatriation is at present unacceptable. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Hong Kong government would be prepared to be more flexible in its screening approach.
The reason why this problem must be tackled now is that, as 1997 approaches, more drastic measures may have to be taken in Hong Kong, as it is implicit in the Sino-British joint declaration that the boat people will have been dealt with. If there is to be an end to this misery and suffering it must come from tackling the problem at the source—stopping the exodus; preventing the flow. Steps are currently being taken at international level with Vietnam, America and Britain in an effort to seek the assistance of the Vietnamese government in stopping the outflow, to provide international aid to encourage a more prosperous economy, and to secure a declaration by the government in Vietnam that punitive measures will not be taken against the returnees.
More than that is required, however, to counteract the problem in the short term. China plays a part in this story by allowing the boats to refuel and reprovision in the little ports along its southern coastline. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that the Vietnamese and the Chinese, perhaps with United Nations assistance, should effectively police the area of the South China Sea that forms the route from Vietnam so that the boats and their passengers are returned to the starting point almost at once. That would be the best deterrent. That would save the many who would otherwise perish, and it would avoid the misery of years spent in soulless camps in Hong Kong. I ask my noble friend the Minister to encourage his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to press on with the international negotiations required to solve the problem.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, like so many other speakers in this excellent debate, I too should like

249
to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing this very important topic, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke on his maiden speech. I hope to hear many more speeches from the noble Lord.
My background and interest in this subject stem from 15 or 16 years' involvement in Hong Kong: first with the Government's University and Polytechnic Grants Committee, and secondly with two charitable trusts which are concerned with education and research and the arranging of conferences and collaboration between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China.
I was in Hong Kong when it became clear that we were to be involved in hostilities in the Falklands. It is a very interesting contrast—almost the other end of the spectrum. How wonderfully elated the people of Hong Kong were that Britain intended to stand by international law and act on the invasion of the Falkland Islands! Remarks were occasionally made on the side to the effect, "I wonder what would happen if Hong Kong became involved with the People's Republic of China". I have learnt enough wisdom to know that it is best to keep one's mouth closed under such provocation, and I did my best to do so. However, I wish to make the point that what we do is watched very closely in that far-off colony. I am devoted to the notion that somehow we have to re-establish the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, the colony where the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, served so ably as Governor. I liked very much the idea of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, of a scheme offering help and hospitality here to people from Hong Kong. I was moved and intrigued by the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that we needed some form of trusteeship. However, at the end of the line people will be left behind in Hong Kong. It is with them that I am primarily concerned.
I have been to China many times. On one occasion when I was on a steamship in Shanghai harbour, a professor told me that the origins of the stars on the flag of the People's Republic of China should encourage people like me who are involved in educational matters. He said: "That great big star stands for the Communist Party, which was nurtured here in Shanghai. The other four represent the workers, the peasants and the army. The fifth star is concerned with cognoscenti".
I should like to make a declaration. The trusts with which I am concerned hope desperately that we shall avoid the disappearance of that remaining, rather small, cognoscenti star on the red flag. We believe that bringing young people from Hong Kong—and in the past from the People's Republic of China—to the UK to work and study in our universities and polytechnics and to become involved in joint research projects can only increase intellectual traffic and friendship between young people. We believe implicitly that it is imperative that whatever happens we sit tight administratively in Hong Kong and continue to interview people who want to win scholarships or research projects. We believe that it is important to continue visiting the universities and polytechnics, which are increasingly
250
strong in Hong Kong. That is perhaps the only way in which we academic folk, who are relatively impotent in these matters, can convey to the people of Hong Kong our belief in them, and our recognition of their nimbleness of wit and their nimble fingers, which are their greatest heritage. In that way we show them that we can offer them the kind of friendship and support implicit in the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
It is important, however, to recognise that the folk we see represent merely the tip of the iceberg. We are very conscious that below the high achievers in the academic and scholastic world there are many who are of less economic significance who we have somehow to reach and help, too, We believe that the best way to help them is in part through language. The Croucher Foundation has joined recently with the BBC and Chinese Central Television to produce an instructional series of television programmes about learning technological and scientific English. It is being shown in Hong Kong in Cantonese, and in the People's Republic in Cantonese and Mandarin.
There is a great deal of long, hard and patient work ahead re-establishing the necessary spirit among the people in that gallant colony.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, not only on her speech, but also on her initiative in raising this important subject at this very timely moment. I should also like to join in the congratulations on the excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Naturally, as a former Minister responsible for Hong Kong between 1970 and 1974, I share the concern expressed by many noble Lords today for the people of Hong Kong and about the deplorable and cruel behaviour by the Peking Government that we have recently witnessed on our television screens during the early days of this month. However, I believe that now is the moment for caution in our dealings with China. Any thoughtless move by the United Kingdom could result in Hong Kong being engulfed, not in 1997 but in 1990 or even this year.
I very much support the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who mentioned the defence aspects of the colony and the worrying situation that could arise with regard to security if we do not move with great care.
There is no possibility at this time of reviewing the 1997 agreement with China. Any move in that direction might seriously destabilise Hong Kong as the uproar in China can fall out on the colony at any time. Many of us will remember the events of 1967 when the Cultural Revolution spilled onto the streets of Kowloon. In addition, it is always open to a hostile Peking Government to allow mass immigration from the Guandong Province. That could immediately overwhelm the colony and cause confrontation with the provincial government, affecting food and water supplies, which are drawn from China.
Those of us who, like myself, were in China, Hong Kong, and Macau during the cultural revolutionary

251
period in the 1960s know from first hand how swiftly China can get out of control. However, that does not mean that we should not embark on serious contingency planning immediately.
What areas do I suggest that we cover? There are two that I should like to mention this afternoon. The first concerns our relations with China itself if that great nation deteriorates again into chaos. I believe that the present hardline leadership in Peking will consolidate its control—at any rate until Deng Xiaoping dies. There is little support, perhaps regrettably, in the Chinese countryside for the students' action against the current regime. But one cannot forecast Chinese political developments.
There is one wild card. If the hardliners lose control in Peking, China could revert to the position that it has known for the past 3,000 years, except for the 40 years since the 1949 Communist takeover; namely, real power shifting to warlords in the provinces.
In Chiang Kai Shek's time, there was nominally a central government; but in practice real power lay with different warlords and their armies in those provinces not occupied by the Japanese. I suspect that there has been more "warlordism" under the Communists than has been generally recognised. It was mentioned to me the other day that it was, for instance, curious that Mao Tse-tung, after being ousted by Liu Shao Shi, could live freely in Shanghai for some years, plotting against the Peking Government, and presumably protected by whoever controlled Shanghai. There have now been reports that Deng Xiaoping left Peking for Wuhan to call together the generals and to recall the veterans of the long march who may have influence in particular provinces. If that provincial influence exists, the implications for Hong Kong could be important and possibly positive.
It is also interesting to look at the dogs who have not barked, or perhaps have only whimpered. Taiwan has publicly shown considerable restraint, but the Soviets have taken a subdued and supportive line for Peking, no doubt due to Gorbachev's recent visit. But, as George Walden—an honourable Member in another place and a distinguished parliamentarian who knows China well—wrote in an impressive article in the Daily Telegraph on 8th June:
"While gun law persists on the mainland, hasty change to the present delicate balance in Hong Kong could inadvertently topple the entire structure".
The second point that the Government should cover is possible action on passports for right of abode in a situation of last resort, a subject which has been raised by many noble Lords this afternoon. We have a duty to live up to our moral obligations to the colony, as many who have spoken this afternoon said in the debate in this House on 23rd March. I am encouraged by the Foreign Secretary's recent statement, confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday in another place, and we must take the lead and conduct urgent negotiations in confidence with our European and Commonwealth friends in order that we can provide succour and relief if the worst happens. That is the grave problem that faces
252
us now and underlines the need for a deep-seated view of the action that we can realistically take, and indeed are duty bound to take, if the situation does not develop in the way that we hoped it would when the agreement was signed in Peking.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the leaders of the Hong Kong community in these dangerous times, particularly Dame Lydia Dunn's outstanding skill and leadership. Hong Kong owes her and her colleagues a great debt.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for enabling us to debate the position in Hong Kong at this crucial time, and for her opening speech. She discussed the major problems facing the colony, and other noble Lords with wide experience of Hong Kong have expressed their concern and made important suggestions. I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on his well informed and interesting maiden speech. We shall look forward to hearing him again on many future occasions.
My noble friend has been particularly concerned about the boat people and she made a moving plea on their behalf today, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. That problem of the influx of refugees from Vietnam has grown over the last two years until it has reached its present crisis point. Before I come to the main subject of the debate, I would like first to deal briefly with that point. The Hong Kong Government are no longer able to cope with that problem and the Legislative Council has now refused to approve extra funds to accommodate new refugees. The inevitable result is that those who do come have to live in appalling conditions.
We are aware that those unfortunate people are allowed to sail away by the Government of Vietnam. It comes as a shock when we realise how callous and unscrupulous the leaders of some unhappy countries can be. At the Geneva conference on the 13th of this month, the Foreign Secretary said that mandatory expatriation should be introduced by October if not enough Vietnamese had volunteered to go home by then. The nature of the problem makes an internationally agreed solution essential and we hope that United Nations member states will agree to receive genuine political refugees. As my noble friend suggested, some settlement with Vietnam itself is also probably necessary, although that may not be too easy to negotiate when the time comes. However, we are not attracted to the possibility of enforced repatriation and we shall be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will clarify the Government's policy on that point when he winds up.
That leads me to the reaction of the world in general, and of Hong Kong in particular, to recent events in China. Noble Lords with great experience have spoken movingly and have adequately expressed the views of this House. We have been profoundly disappointed. I remember our debate on the Hong Kong Bill on 19th February 1985 and the hopes that we had then that Mr. Deng Xiaoping and his Government would honour the joint declaration

253
in letter and spirit. He then spoke of one country, two systems, as the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, reminded us.
Our confidence has been shattered and I hope that the Chinese Government can be made to understand that. I remember Mao Tse Tung's much publicised prophecy that,
"A thousand flowers would bloom"
in China under his dispensation. In Tiananmen Square, many more than a thousand flowers—the future hope of China—were mercilessly mown down. The immediate and natural reaction was that we, Britain, should reject the joint declaration. But, as my noble friend and others have said, we should, on reflection, wait to see what government develops in China during the next few years and whether there is a possibility that they will adhere to the agreement and keep their word about the future of Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong know China better than we do. They do not want to leave their homes, and those who have foreign passports still hope that they will not need to use them. They want to continue their lives and businesses so long as that is reasonable and tolerable.
My noble friend and other noble Lords have gone into some detail on immigration and the right of abode. That issue is, of course, central to the debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will explain the Government's policy to us when he replies. We have already had a number of exchanges in this House on the subject and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made statements upon it. My noble friend referred to what the Prime Minister said in another place on 8th June; namely, that the Government were prepared to see whether they could obtain increasing flexibility from the present rules. That point has been discussed by other noble Lords and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, to whom we listen with great respect. He made an important suggestion about the possibility of amending the nationality Act. I am sure that the Government will wish to give very careful thought to his proposal.
The word "flexibility" has been used on several occasions. I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to be more specific about its meaning. On 8th June in this House, he said:
"all categories—that includes the entire range of people in Hong Kong—will have to be considered in this way".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 942.]
He then went on to imply that the matter might be clarified after talks with the governor. Now that those talks are over, perhaps we may be told whether the Government are able to give a definitive reply. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, we must be generous as well as flexible. We are glad to understand that the Foreign Secretary is to visit Hong Kong next month and we wish him well on that important mission.
There has been a great deal of discussion here and elsewhere during the last few weeks about the responsibilities of the Government in these exceptional circumstances. A good deal of advice has been proffered, most of it with good will. But it is one thing to give advice; it is another to operate
254
a practical solution. I shall come to that in a moment. For my own part I must say that, while recognising our very real responsibilities, I do not think at this time, 8 years before the agreement becomes operative, the Government can grant an immediate right of abode in Britain to 3·25 million people. These islands are small and already over-populated. To grant this right forthwith to so large a number—far more than the population of Wales—is not immediately feasible.
In my view it would be wrong, indeed it would be dishonourable, to say that one is granting a right of abode to 3·25 million people in the hope that they will not come. Because of the numbers which may be involved the problem is huge and the logistics are complex. If, in the last resort, mass emigration became essential, then the international community as a whole would need to be involved in a major planning operation.
I agree again with the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord MacLehose of Beoch, that we should start talking about a possible scheme now to our partners in the European Community, to our fellow members in the Commonwealth and to the United States of America; and we should also consider whether there are any United Nations channels which might be explored. In my view it is to these possibilities that the Government should apply themselves at this time.
When I was last in Hong Kong I was taken to the border with China to observe the measures taken to deal with illegal immigrants. That problem has now changed in character because the Hong Kong Government must consider what to do about political refugees. The governor said—and I quote him—that "if there are individual special cases, then they will be dealt with individually". We must agree with that. Those who are genuinely fleeing from the terror cannot be sent back.
Lastly, what the Government can now do is to help Hong Kong along the road to fuller, practical democracy. The changed situation calls for new measures and the Hong Kong Legislative Council, whose views we must respect, have come to the unanimous view that by 1995 at least 50 per cent. of the council should be directly elected. If we carry on with our present plan it means that the installation of effective democratic institutions will be postponed until the next century. I believe that most, if not all, of us—and I include the noble Lord opposite—would like to see an effective elected council in place and working by 1997. I do not think that we need to be too sensitive to the Chinese Government's susceptibilities about democracy at this time. The people of Hong Kong have wrought an economic miracle in 40 years and they can teach other lessons as well. We must help them in every way, and specifically by advancing the date of direct elections.
We often debate foreign affairs in this House when our responsibilities on the various issues are limited, shared or in some cases vague. This is not the case with Hong Kong. As noble Lords have said, it is a unique case. It is a British colony and our responsibilities are absolute. They are heavy and difficult, and they call for special measures.

255
Our objective on this side of the House is to help the Government in every possible way to achieve a just solution to these problems. However, our policies must be clear. They must be practical and just, and we must seek for them the understanding and co-operation of the international community. It is in that spirit that we participate in this debate.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I join with all those who have paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for providing this opportuniy to debate Hong Kong at a time when the thoughts of so many people in this country are acutely focused on the Territory and her people. The debate has once again demonstrated the experience, concern and sympathy, which your Lordships bring to bear on matters affecting Hong Kong, and has provided much food for thought.
I should like to join all those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on an excellent maiden speech which was full of feeling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I too hope that we shall have the benefit of his interventions soon and often.
What today's debate has done above all—and I hope this will not be lost on Hong Kong—is to underline the keen commitment of us all to maintain the welfare, prosperity and security of Hong Kong and all her people, safeguarding their achievements and way of life up to 1997 and beyond.
Memories of the appalling and tragic events in Peking are still at the forefront of our minds. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said that all the signs were there when we watched what was taking place in Tibet, Her Majesty's Government made clear their concerns and those of this House. Those concerns were reflected clearly in remarks that I made here on many occasions to the Chinese authorities. We expressed our regret at the imposition of martial law in Tibet and have consistently urged that dialogue should take place between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan people.
On the 6th June I made clear that the Government condemn unreservedly the indiscriminate massacre of unarmed civilians in China. Now we see policies of systematic repression, such as those described by my noble friend Lord Geddes, following in the wake of the bloody violence in Peking and elsewhere. We deplore these events just as vigorously as those which occurred on 3rd and 4th June. The whole world has been horrified by these developments, but understandably the impact has been felt most in Hong Kong.
Against that shocking background it is natural that many should speak today about ways of helping Hong Kong. It is right that we should help. As the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, said, it is a duty on us. Our fundamental objective is to give the people of Hong Kong a future in Hong Kong that they want and deserve.
Much of our debate has focused on what we should do to relieve the most obvious and immediate concerns of Hong Kong people: uncertainties about
256
nationality and right of abode; progress towards democracy; the heavy burden of Vietnamese boat people. It is easy to react emotionally, to say "Something must be done" and to make superficially attractive suggestions. But we should be under no illusion. These are very complex problems and they are made a thousandfold more difficult and pressing by the outrages in China. We must find measures which offer a prospect of practical and durable solutions. When we have decided what is best, we shall not hesitate to act. However, I have to say that we shall shun "quick-fix" options which relieve the anxieties of today only at the expense of storing up chronic distress for the future. I was glad to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and indeed to have the support of my noble friend Lady Young on that point.
We cannot undo history or geography. Hong Kong's future has to take account of both. I welcome the wholesale support voiced today for the Sino-British Joint Declaration. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and my noble friend Lord Fanshawe. With its provisions for Hong Kong to keep its freedoms and all its present systems, legal, economic and social, and with powerful international links and a high degree of autonomy, that treaty is the cornerstone of Hong Kong's future.
I noted the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, about trusteeship, but the pitfall to that idea lies, I believe, in China's views about its ultimate sovereignty over Hong Kong. That is why we have told the Chinese very clearly that we shall fulfil our obligations under the joint declaration. We insist that they continue to fulfil theirs. Not only is there a solemnly binding international obligation on them to do so, but also it is manifestly in their own interests that they should. But it would be folly to pretend that the current violence and uncertainty in China do not affect our work on the joint declaration and Basic Law. Consultations on the latter have already been suspended. We have also made clear to the Chinese Government that under present circumstances it would not be appropriate to continue normal business connected with the implementation of the joint declaration. Accordingly, the next meeting of the Joint Liaison Group planned for July has been postponed sine die. We have not acted irresponsibly in this matter, as the Chinese Foreign Ministry has suggested. We will meticulously observe our obligations with regard to consultation laid down in Annex II to the joint declaration.
In deciding the way forward—I agree with my noble friend Lord Derwent—we must be careful not to sacrifice good judgment for the sake of speed. Nowhere is this more important than in consideration of Hong Kong's future political system. I can see the attraction of the agreement that now is the time to accelerate progress towards fuller democracy. Even before the events of 3rd and 4th June, opinion on this was clearly evolving in Hong Kong. OMELCO called in May for the proportion of directly elected seats in the Legislative Council to rise to 50 per cent. in 1997 and 100 per cent. by 2003.

257
If Hong Kong can reach a consensus on faster progress towards representative democracy, then—I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—this would be a significant development to which we should certainly wish to respond. It will be essential that the Basic Law fully reflects the views of the Hong Kong people in this as in all other respects, and that its provisions command their confidence.
But as the governor pointed out on his visit to London last week, the process of crystallising views in Hong Kong is still far from complete. We should not rush to judgment while the people of Hong Kong themselves are still digesting the issues involved. Our aim is to establish a political system in Hong Kong that we can be confident will work in the run up to 1997 and well beyond. Setting up a system that cannot last would be an abuse of our responsibility. It would be a tragic waste of the opportunity we have been offered.
To talk of continuity is to underline the importance of the Basic Law. It is not clear how suspension of consultations on the second draft of the Basic Law will affect the timetable for producing the final version. But as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, the need to get the law right is now more important than ever. After all, that document will translate the joint declaration into a detailed constitution which will protect Hong Kong's special status. Of itself it may not give Hong Kong's people all the confidence they seek. But it is the bed rock upon which that confidence must be based. The recent events in China have thrown some of the articles into stark relief. As the noble and gallant Lord, and my noble friend Lord Ullswater indicated, stronger safeguards are demanded and we are considering now how those might be taken forward.
Together with the Hong Kong Government, we are looking urgently at ways of giving more detailed and specific legal protection to fundamental human rights in Hong Kong. One possibility would be the enactment in the territory of a Bill of Rights. The precise form of any such legislation and the timetable need to be looked at. But one merit of this approach would be to provide a codified and readily available body of law, giving very clear effect to the international covenants which already apply in Hong Kong.
Some of the strongest feelings in this debate have been expressed on the subject of nationality and the right of abode for Hong Kong people in the United Kingdom. Of course I understand why this should be a subject of the keenest concern in Hong Kong, and why Hong Kong people should be pressing for some form of assurance for themselves and their families. But as well as being an emotive issue with, as some have said this afternoon, moral overtones it is one with the most serious practical consequences on all sides, as we have discussed on many occasions, and as was so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Young this afternoon. I hope that my noble friend Lord Geddes will understand the force of that argument, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, clearly does.
I have listened with care to what has been said today. However, your Lordships will not expect me
258
to make any announcement this afternoon. But I think from what we have heard that we are all well aware of the very real difficulties which would be posed by a massive new immigration commitment for this country. Granting automatic right of abode here to all people from Hong Kong cannot be a realistic option. There may however be scope for arrangements to enhance Hong Kong people's security and indeed their confidence. What I can say is that considerable effort and indeed imagination are being devoted to finding solutions which tackle the problem.
We are well aware of the proposals for international guarantees to provide a home for all Hong Kong people and will give these full consideration, although I have to say that I do not believe that this would be a viable way forward in the present circumstances. I have noted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and my noble friends Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Fanshawe on this point. Some countries are already taking significant numbers of Hong Kong people for settlement, but they also have other immigration commitments of their own. I believe, frankly, that it would be unrealistic to expect other countries to make a commitment of the order of magnitude necessary to accommodate the entire population of Hong Kong. That said, however, we shall be in touch with our partners in the European Community, in the Commonwealth and elsewhere about the developments in China and their implications for the future of Hong Kong.
To answer one point of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, once a Hong Kong British dependent territories citizen has been granted British citizenship, he would then enjoy freedom of movement within the European Community.
Let me also add that if the worst came to the worst, and the future we plan for Hong Kong became untenable—the Armageddon scenario of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke—then, as my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary said to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of another place recently, the British Government would clearly be under a very strong moral obligation to act. If at some point in the future—although I note the comment of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that this is unlikely—people had to flee Hong Kong in great numbers to escape disaster, then we would do everything in our capacity to help them and I am confident that any future British Government would do everything they could to mobilise the international community to provide a response as comprehensive and as effective as the circumstances demanded.
However, while Hong Kong grapples with these anxieties about the future, it faces another very real problem now, described vividly by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. It is no exaggeration to say that Hong Kong is in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by the continuing influx of Vietnamese boat people. Recent arrivals have hit an all time record—on one occasion more than 1,200 in one day.

259
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has described how the burden that this has imposed on Hong Kong's resources is intolerable, in particular at a time of so many other pressures. We have been keen to help Hong Kong free itself of this burden as fast as possible, and to help in material and practical ways. That is why we have committed over £12 million to help: £6 million towards the capital costs of a new refugee centre at Pillar Point; £2 million in support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees activities in Hong Kong; and £4·5 million for emergency accommodation, including tents and huts.
We have played an active and constructive role in international efforts to promote humane and durable solutions. My right honourable friend and I attended the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees held in Geneva last week, which marks a very significant step forward.
Generous commitments were made to resettle 57,000 refugees from the region over three years. As part of this effort Britain will take a further 1,000 refugees from Hong Kong in addition to the 1,000 we announced earlier this year.
The Philippines Government have agreed in principle to establish a regional processing centre to which all refugees in the region could be transferred prior to resettlement within three years. We have announced our readiness to contribute £5 million towards the cost of such a centre which would provide early and urgently needed relief for Hong Kong.
The conference also marked international acceptance of the reality that all those boat people who do not qualify as refugees must find their future in Vietnam. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ullswater. What could be more inhumane than the prospect of their indefinite detention in camps in Hong Kong and elsewhere? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the task now is to work for arrangements to enable them to return to their country of origin safely and without fear of punishment. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that we shall be holding talks with the Vietnamese later this month—including during the visit to London next week by the Vietnamese Foreign Minister—with this aim in mind.
There has been criticism that the screening procedures in Hong Kong have been too slow and that there is a need to make them more flexible. The Hong Kong Government have recently introduced a new screening and appeals procedure which will take only three months. It is intended to screen all the boat people currently in Hong Kong within 12 months.
I hope that I have been able to show that the interests of Hong Kong are of the deepest concern to the Government. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary will be paying a visit to Hong Kong early next month. He will want to hear at first hand the views of the people of Hong Kong and to seek to reassure them of our continuing commitment and determination to work for their prosperous and stable future. However, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that for
260
my right honourable and learned friend to visit China now would be quite wrong and entirely inappropriate in the light of recent events there.
We have been talking today about the practical challenges facing Hong Kong and our efforts to find practical answers. We all know that these are not the only factors involved. The intangible but overwhelmingly important question of confidence is also crucial to our chances of success.
Confidence in Hong Kong has taken a battering in recent weeks. It is not the only rough passage that Hong Kong has been through, but it is a severe one and like no other in its particular complications. Hong Kong has the strength to surmount it, but not without help, and not easily.
Confidence cannot be rebuilt overnight. It cannot even be built on quite the same basis as before. It will depend crucially on how China acts both towards Hong Kong and towards her own people. As a matter of plain fact, confidence cannot be as strong as it should be unless and until China has an open, stable and civilised government which finds peaceful and constructive ways of meeting its people's concerns.
That is one major reason why we have made clear our utter condemnation of recent brutalities in China, both in words and through a series of practical measures. My noble friend Lord Selkirk expressed concern about China's history throughout this century and I agree with many of his remarks. Therefore, it is right that we must use what influence we have to guide China's leaders back on to better paths. It would be wrong as well as defeatist to assume that what we do and say can make no difference. Our actions have, of course, a much better chance if they are not taken in isolation: and that is why we have concerted so closely in this crisis with other EC member states and a variety of western partners.
Our international friends can do much to help rebuild Hong Kong's confidence too. But the first and main responsibility rests with us. That is a responsibility and a faith that we are fully committed to uphold.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Many thoughtful and well informed contributions have been made. Different points of view have been put forward, together with specific proposals and many thoughts and ideas about the situation in Hong Kong. However, I believe that a common thread has run through all the different speeches. It is a firm determination that a fair and equitable solution should be found for the people of Hong Kong.
I hope that those from Hong Kong who have heard the debate this afternoon and those who may read about it will feel that their interests are central to our preoccupations. I believe that today's discussion has paved the way for a further debate on the definite proposals and ideas which have been put forward. We are all aware of the well known determination and vigour of our Prime Minister. Therefore, I cannot believe that she would wish the curtain to be

261
run down on an empire with any accusation of betrayal from the people of Hong Kong. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Working Women: Care of Dependants
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the case for action to be taken to improve child care facilities and the care of the elderly in the community to enable more women to join the workforce should they wish to do so; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of opening today's debate on an important subject about which I know many noble Lords are also concerned. As my starting point I should like to take the Government's White Paper, Employment for the 1990s. Noble Lords will be aware that I am not at all enthusiastic about the White Paper, particularly about some of its conclusions. However, there is a paragraph with which I concur. At page 8, paragraph 1.8 states:
"The number of women in the labour force will increase. Two-thirds of labour force growth between 1983 and 1987 was made up of married women, and by 1995 the projected increase in the size of the female labour force is some three-quarters of a million, over 80 per cent. of the total. Employers must recognise that women can no longer be treated as second-class workers. They will need women employees, and must recognise both their career ambitions and domestic responsibilities. This will involve broadening company training policies, much more flexibility of work and hours and job-sharing, to facilitate the employment of women with families and help adapt to their needs".
It must be said that the White Paper does not follow up that paragraph with anything indicating that the Government believe in public provision of support services. We still live in a society where most of the caring of children and the elderly is done by women. Poor child care facilities are the main reason why women are forced into part-time, low-wage jobs. However, when their labour power has been needed employers and government can act quickly. During the last war from 1939 to 1945 provision of child care facilities grew rapidly. In 1940 there were 14 state nurseries. Within three years there were 1,345 offering places for more than 60,000 children. That is twice today's number. However, as soon as the war ended it was not felt necessary to keep women at work and in large part the nurseries were closed.
As the White Paper makes clear, demographic trends suggest that we may be moving into a situation in which once again women are necessary and vital in the workforce. But it does not look as though child care provision will be adequate unless firm steps are taken and, in particular, unless the Government decide to take a greater part in ensuring such provision. At present, less than 10 per cent. of under-fives attend a local authority nursery or school and the majority of those only benefit from part-time provision with just 4 per cent. of three and four year-olds in full-time local authority nurseries.
Women who want child care facilities often have to pay quite highly for them. There are now
262
more private than local authority nurseries. Sometimes as much as £80 per week is charged for a place. In the main, as a recent report shows, day care is provided by relatives and child minders. There are currently about 100 workplace nurseries in the UK, mainly in the public sector, such as hospitals, local authorities and colleges. Only 20 private companies provide workplace nurseries.
Moreover, I should like to raise an issue here which has been raised many times before in your Lordships' House. As regards workplace nurseries, under current government policy such provision is regarded as a perk and tax is levied accordingly. That applies to any employee earning £8,500 or more per annum which is hardly a high salary nowadays. The Government persist in their attitude despite opposition from the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Personnel Management and a number of Peers from all sides of this House.
It should be said that in contrast other countries in the EC, notably France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, offer parents special tax advantages as well as help with child care costs. Of course, there were once tax allowances in the UK. Those disappeared with the introduction of child benefit. That is no bad thing except that the value of child benefit has been eroded because of the Government's policy of freezing it. Again, that is an issue repeatedly raised in this House and is likely to be raised again on the debate in Committee on the Social Security Bill. However, I cannot talk about child care provision in the UK without making a reference to it. It is an important element in child care policy.
Apart from relatives, there is a substantial reliance in the UK, as I have already said, on child minders. Those are defined in the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 as any person who for reward looks after children under the age of five for more than two hours a day. Most child minders provide care throughout the year. It is known that there are a number of illegal unregistered child minders. It has been estimated that about 20 per cent. of child minders are not registered. Although the majority of women are compelled to use child minders if they do not have relatives, their express preference is for nursery provision. The UK report to the European Commission called Caring for Children found that while 80 per cent. of parents at work used child minders, only 3 per cent. believed that to be the best provision.
Local authorities are empowered to provide day care services under the National Health Service Act. However, provision varies enormously from place to place. A recent survey conducted by the Independent newspaper showed that while 85·6 per cent. of three and four year-olds in Salford had a pre-school place, only 8·2 per cent. in West Sussex had that benefit. Overall, the top 24 providers were Labour-controlled—so much for some of the criticisms often unjustly leveled at Labour-controlled local authorities.
As it is, the UK has less publicly-funded child care services than any other EC country except Portugal. Here are some interesting figures. West Germany has 60 per cent. of children aged 3 to 5 in publicly-funded child care while France has 95 per cent.; the

263
Netherlands has 50 per cent., Italy has 88 per cent., Ireland has 52 per cent., the UK has 44 per cent. and Portugal has 25 per cent.
The attitude of the Government has been made clear on a number of occasions. In response to a Question for Written Answer in the other place the Minister stated:
"Our view is that it is for the parents who go out to work to decide how best to care for their children. If they want or need help in this task they should make the appropriate arrangements and meet the costs.
"Our objective is that there should be a range of day care services so that parents can make a choice. Public provision by local authorities should concentrate on the particular needs of children from families with health or social difficulties".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/88; col. 150.]
Of course, it is a laudable objective that parents should have a choice. However, the reference to public provision appears to limit that only to problem families. No one disputes that such families should be assisted but that should not rule out provision for families who although they cannot be classified as problem nevertheless need child care facilities.
The absence of such facilities bears of course most heavily on women. A recent report produced by the European Commission entitled Child care and Equality of Opportunity found that throughout the EC women bear the main responsibility and the cost of having a child. In the UK it has been calculated that having children can cost a woman up to half her lifetime's potential earnings. On the other hand, men tend to maintain their wages when they have children. Women may be forced to leave the workforce altogether, at least temporarily. When they return they will have lost their place on the career ladder.
Furthermore, pension entitlement based on number of years worked will also suffer. That is why it is such a pity that this Government decided to alter the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) by removing the provision which calculated pension entitlement on the best 20 years' earnings uprated. Private personal pensions are not likely to offer women with a chequered work pattern a better deal. When they return to work, women may have to take part in part-time employment in order to cope with domestic responsibilities. In the UK, which has 40 per cent. of all part-time workers in the EC, 80 per cent. of part-time workers earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £3.25 per hour. Many are not covered for basic employment rights. The report to which I have already alluded concludes that on the evidence:
"the conditions under which men and women supply their labour to the labour market are not equal and this inequality is neither inherent nor inevitable but is socially determined. Wage rates and occupational position are not determined purely by market forces but by the social costs of reproduction which are unequally distributed … Lack of power within the market place reinforces powerlessness within the home and in the political arena which in turn, feeds back into the labour market".
There would appear to be a clear correlation between the participation of women in the labour force and the availability of child care. For example, in Denmark where the level of child care provision is high, 75 per cent. of mothers of young children are employed whereas in the UK, which has a low
264
figure of child care provision, it is 28 per cent. The coming demographic changes and the prediction that by the end of the century 80 per cent. of the growth of the workforce will be made up of women underlines the importance of ensuring that employers give assistance to employees with domestic responsibilities.
That point is made strongly in the White Paper. However, not many appear to have come to terms with that need. Despite evidence that good maternity provision can play a role in helping employers to retain women workers, most firms only offer the minimum statutory maternity benefit. A survey recently undertaken of facilities provided by 120 employers showed that only one in five provided more than minimum maternity provision. Only four organisations in that sample provided child care facilities for employees. Six organisations had introduced career break schemes.
Here, I should say that a number of banks and insurance companies have been at the forefront of such provision. Those schemes are very valuable to employers as well as employees. They enable the employer to retain trained employees. They enable the employees to keep in touch during the period of leave, normally up to five years, and thus avoid the damaging break in service which otherwise hampers career development.
Of course, while of particular value to women, these schemes are unisex; that is, open also to male employees. Indeed, there would now appear to be a growing tendency which I welcome, particularly in EC countries, for men to take more of a share in the care of children. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the UK Government should persist in blocking the EC directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons. It is to be hoped that the Government would reconsider their attitude in that regard.
To summarise on child care, we could do a great deal more. The care that is available is often inadequate, expensive, or both. Local authorities do not, with some notable exceptions, provide facilities at an adequate level. There is inadequate public funding. Too few employers heed the Government's injuctions to make assistance available to employees with domestic responsibilities. It is not a matter that can be left to fragmented private and voluntary provision. Unless provision is made, many women who might otherwise contribute to the economy will be prevented from doing so, even though they themselves may wish to do so. Training, which is expensive, will be wasted. Women themselves will fail to achieve fully equity despite UK and Community law.
The second part of the Motion deals with care of the elderly in the Community. I was moved to include this in the Motion after I went to a meeting to talk to a group of women about the Equal Opportunities Commission, of which I was a member for six years, and equality law. I talked about the need for child care facilities. At the end of the meeting one woman approached me and said, "That is all very well. I really do sympathise with younger women with children. Of course they ought to have proper facilities. But look at me"—the woman was in her late 40s— "I have a mother who

265
needs constant care. I cannot leave her. Sometimes it nearly drives me crazy. I would love to work outside the home. I would like a break occasionally but I cannot even manage that. So what about women like me?" What indeed? There are many women in that position.
The Equal Opportunities Commission estimates that there are around 1·25 million informal carers in Britain. The Carers' Association estimates the figure at even higher than that. Incidentally, I pay tribute to the work undertaken by a number of voluntary organisations in this field and, in particular, to the Carers' Association, the president of which is the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The demand for informal care is likely to increase even without any change in policy direction. The population aged over 65 has risen from 1·5 million to 7·5 million since 1900. By the year 2000, 38 per cent. of the elderly population will be aged over 75 compared with 25 per cent. at the turn of the century. Many of those elderly people will require care.
Between the ages of 35 and 64 roughly half of all women can expect at some time to give help to elderly or infirm persons. That is the period of life when women expect to be most active economically. In addition to the direct costs of caring for someone in the home, the woman who is doing the caring will almost certainly experience loss of income. There may well be a need to change to part-time work, involving a reduction in status and career prospects. That may result in the loss of employment-related benefits such as pension entitlement, to which I referred earlier. In recent years there has been emphasis on care in the community rather than institutional care. There is no doubt that many elderly and infirm people would prefer to be cared for in their own homes and by people whom they know. However, the cost is likely to be borne by the women who do the caring.
Concern about community care policy led the Government to ask Sir Roy Griffiths to conduct a review. As we know, the Griffiths Report was published in March of last year. Key recommendations were that there should be a Minister of State responsible for community care. Further, an enhanced role was envisaged for local authorities so that they would be enabled to identify and assess individual needs including the needs of informal carers. The report also said that local authorities should be enabled to assess the need for residential care and ensure that the costs of caring were met if people could not pay. Clearly much more is needed in the way of resources. Care in the community should not be seen as a cheap option. If it is, informal carers, mostly women, will pay the price for it.
Carers can sometimes become quite desperately harassed by the demands made upon them by elderly and often difficult relatives. I received a letter this morning from the Alzheimers Disease Society. I was surprised to learn that there are an estimated 750,000 sufferers from this disease and other dementias. The society is extremely concerned at the lack of support services for carers who are looking after such people at home.
The Government have still not said what they intend to do about the Griffiths Report, although according to newspaper reports this morning they are apparently reaching some conclusions and we may expect to hear what they propose to do. The report does not provide the full answer but it would at least, if the recommendations were put into operation, provide some alleviation of the desperate problems faced by many carers. My Lords, I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for her excellent speech. We are all accustomed to hearing very well-informed speeches from the noble Baroness, and she has certainly not disappointed us today. Indeed, she has perhaps overstepped the mark in that she has said everything that I wanted to say. However, I shall do my best to take perhaps a different line.
We must surely all be aware that in the foreseeable future this country will be short of employable people. The number of children now at school and who will fill the enlarging gaps in our workforce is now dwindling at an alarming rate. This means that the employers will have to pull out all the stops to entice young people to work for them. It also means that the Government will have to encourage young people to fill the vacancies. I fear that the Government are at present not giving sufficient encouragement to young people.
This Motion deals primarily with child care facilities. It also mentions care of the elderly, but I shall not deal with that part as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, with her wide experience, is dealing with those problems in her speech. Similarly, my noble friend Lady Faithfull will be dealing with the excellent idea put forward by the National Child Minding Association.
Although my maternal instincts persuade me that during a child's formative years the mother should have the responsibility for bringing up her baby, we now living in—and, I hope, passing through—a particularly difficult age in family life. An increasing number of girls—by that I mean aged under 18—are having children. They are often left on their own with no support from the father. However helpful the welfare state tries to be in providing the essentials of life for the single mother, the strains of coping (often at a young, immature age) are great indeed. In my view that is where the enticements offered by employers are of vital importance.
Many large employers provide crèches for pre-nursery school age. Other employers encourage their employees to work part-time, to suit the employees. Other employers stagger the working times. Among those who do that is the hospital service which seems to go out of its way to encourage nurses back to their chosen career. Yet other employers offer to pay part of the child minder's fees which, as the noble Baroness told us, can be very large indeed. There are now very many more nursery schools, and these must be encouraged, both in the private and local authority sectors.

267
When a child reaches the age of five years, it may well be difficult for working mother to be at the school gates on time to see her child home; but that is important to both parent and child. Both the employers and the schools must be asked to make it possible for the mother to keep her times flexible. I entirely agree with those who say that the parent-child relationship should be paramount, and that the upbringing of the child is vital to its future.
I shall be brief now. We wish to encourage, as I believe we must, the young parent who wishes to return to work after having one or more children. The employers and the state will have to do much more than they are doing at the moment to encourage them.
5.50 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for introducing this important topic. I also join in congratulating her on a very well informed and clearly argued speech. Perhaps I may cap the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. I too found that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said most of what I wanted to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said the rest. That puts me in a certain amount of difficulty.
But it allows me to engage in a certain amount of general reflection. Were the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, here, he would doubtless say that I was ranging wide of the field. I assure my noble kinsman that I intend to tie it down strictly to the words of the Motion in front of us. When looking at the social security system, I admit that from time to time I become concerned at the amount that it costs, which is very considerable. I do not see a way to reduce that by a process of cutting. Where the loss of £1 a week is such a painfully large proportion of a person's income, the pain caused is usually altogether disproportionate to the amount saved. It is very difficult to provide a Benthamite justification for that kind of cutting.
What we really need to be looking at is what the demographers call our dependency ratio; namely, how many of us are supporting how many? That is the area to which the noble Baroness has drawn our attention. We have a situation of an increased and increasing proportion of the population who are retired, and a more rapidly increasing proportion of the population who are over the age of 80. We also have a falling proportion of teenagers entering the labour market. In this situation, if we are to keep up our workforce to a point where our dependency ratio remains economically manageable, it is vital that women should have the opportunity, without let or hindrance, of entering the labour market. I am delighted that the noble Baroness included in her Motion the words,
"should they wish to do so".
That is a vital liberal point.
The combining of family life and work is difficult enough already without external pressure. We should be thinking of creating opportunity and not of directing. It is because the Motion does that, among many other things, that I welcome it so strongly. It
268
becomes more difficult with the increasing mobility of labour. I have seen this situation among graduate students in the United States. A married couple discusses earnestly whether they can accept a situation where he is offered a job at Harvard and she a job in Los Angeles. It is a further effect of this situation that the couple increasingly find, through mobility, that they become cut off from grandparents. Grandparents can provide a vitally important part both in giving the children experience and in relieving the parents. This absence of grandparents so often caused by mobility, puts even more strain on the provision of child care. That makes it even more vitally important.
At the other extreme we can also consider greater flexibility regarding the retiring age. The word is "flexibility'. I am not speaking about raising or lowering a compulsory retiring age, but about giving people the opportunity to work if they are fit, able and willing to do so. I recall one case, and the right reverend Prelate may know to whom I allude. An Oxford Professor of ecclesiastical history was appointed when there was no retiring age. His colleagues arranged a dinner to celebrate his 85th birthday. It was clearly intended as a hint. The professor began his speech in reply by saying, "Gentlemen, I am a modest but not a retiring man". He died in harness at the age of 92.
I see no useful purpose in stopping such people working. I also agree very strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said about caring. "Care in the Community" is an excellent slogan but it raises the question of who cares for the community? I have seen plenty of people worn out by caring. For a very short period I once myself gave housing to a paranoid schizophrenic. Even after that short period I knew something of what that exhaustion means. There must be support and means of giving the carers relief even if it is only just a few hours. They must be given time to go off and breathe. That is an important aspect.
I come back to what I consider to be the central thrust of this debate; namely, the question of allowing women to enter the labour force. It raises economic problems which are perhaps illustrated by all those costings that one reads from time to time of the value of a wife. Almost invariably and most persuasively those costings add up to a great deal more than the whole of her husband's income. In free market principles, I believe that there may be some conclusions to be drawn from that; but I am not exactly sure what they are. They need thinking through. There is a great deal to be done regarding child care. I have deliberately decided to take a self-denying ordinance and not to plug today any amendments that I might be debating tomorrow. We shall have plenty of time to return to those.
Throughout the area of child care there is the problem of funding. I was looking at a recent remark made by Sue Owen of the National Childminding Association. She said:
"Local authorities are already approaching breaking point. The Children Bill does no provide for any additional funding to pay for inspection and support".
It is an uncomfortably familiar story. The issue of funding is one to which we keep returning. We

269
cannot get away from it. I also agree strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said concerning the taxing of workplace nurseries. That seems to be typical, shortsighted Treasury thinking, particularly since the Treasury, by great effort, is depriving itself of potential revenue from the earnings that those people might achieve were their children satisfactorily cared for. The Treasury is really the Old Man of Thermopylae of the body politic, and it needs to be put in its place from time to time. We should be thinking instead of tax allowances for the cost of childcare rather than taxing it as a perk as though it were a form of income. Children need to be cared for.
I am reminded from time to time of my great grandfather's remark in 1831 that the disposal of the Tuscans and the Molynese, as if they were so many firkins of butter, is really somewhat too profligate. Sometimes one hears childcare discussed by Treasury thinkers very much in that spirit. I deplore it. Where we find a quite different and much more imaginative spirit is if we consider what is on the menu when we take a diet of Brussels. I have come to the conclusion that the cuisine Flamand really has a good deal to be said for it.
I have been reading today a 1983 EC directive which is still held up by the opposition of what the EC coyly describe as "certain member states". I find that a very attractive document. The notion of parental leave that can be taken by either parent is one that I find extremely attractive. It is one that I should have been very glad indeed to take advantage of. Apart from the advantages to the mother and the child, it is an advantage to the father to be able to get to know the child properly during the first few weeks. However, one cannot do that without doing some work. I like the notion of leave for family reasons. It is proposed that there should be 10 days a year, to cover those terrible days when nobody can take you to the hospital. There must be some arrangement for those situations.
I have been looking at this year's report of the child care network. It is an imaginative document. It is not awfully happy with us. Britain, Ireland and the Netherlands are the worst countries it has looked at. An EC Commissioner recently remarked on this subject:
"The Community is not some sort of expensive restaurant which allows diners to choose a la carte what they want from the menu and leave the rest behind".
Here we have genuinely imaginative thinking, just the kind of thing we seem to be missing. When I think about a diet of Brussels, I realise that there are in this country a good many hungry sheep who, if they could have that diet, would be a good deal better fed than they are now.
6.1 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for raising this important subject for debate. A recent survey carried out for Manchester City Council found that nine out of 10 mothers thought that the council should provide more child care facilities so that mothers who wished could return to work. One problem
270
encountered by mothers is that they have to pay tax. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already mentioned, if their child care is provided by their employer and they earn more than £8,500 a year, they cannot claim that back. Child care is expensive if it is good. Therefore, of necessity, the mother has to be well paid, or financially she does not gain. No one can expect the Government or voluntary organisations to run child care single-handedly, but a combination of both should lead to better facilities.
The National Childminding Association finds that many businesses are interested in establishing day-care schemes for the children of their employees. The Government support this. However, some companies are, I understand, keen that there should be standardised legislation containing clear criteria on quality of care as a solid foundation on which they can build. Most particularly, however, the current tax on employer supported child care is a brake on more business initiatives. This is a pity as a scheme for businesses to provide day-care schemes is a good one.
One very good idea that has just emerged is child care cheques. On 14th June, the National Childminding Association, in conjunction with Mercer Fraser, launched a scheme of child care cheques. It heralds a major advance in the provision of quality child care. Child care cheques are paid by the employer to the employee to help cover all or part of the cost of child care to enable the employee to remain in or take up employment. One point of importance is that cheques can be redeemed only with child minders who are accredited to the National Childminding Association and registered with local authorities. As the need approaches for more women in the workforce in the 1990s, so the need for good child minding care is essential. The chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission sees child care as a perk of the future.
In the area of day care for young children there is no standardisation of resources around the country. Equally, for the care of older children, the National Out of School Alliance is already concerned about low standards of care, and also of premises in many out of school schemes. A removal of the registration of such schemes for children over eight, as is suggested in the Children Bill, will serve only to worsen the position in terms of available resources. In June 1988 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Science into provision for under-fives. The NSPC register of research for 1977–86 revealed a number of trends, in particular that under-fives continue to represent the majority of failure to thrive, of neglect and at risk cases. This underlines the value of provision for under-fives. The NSPCC feels that abused children may derive special benefit from intervention or support from outside the home.
The National Out of School Alliance is the only national organisation supporting and initiating care and play schemes for children over five before and after school and in the school holidays. It is concerned at the new Government clauses to the Children Bill which remove over-eights from registration legislation. This means that local

271
authorities will have no duty to register or monitor standards for after school and holiday schemes for children over eight. This is very worrying, especially in cities. Last Thursday the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked a supplementary question on the subject of crack. At col. 1519 he asked whether the Minister was aware that television pictures, especially in New York, have shown children selling crack to other children. In view of the fear of this terrible drug coming to Britain in greater quantities than it already is, surely it is vital that provision is made for the older children.
There are several reasons why day care for children over five is as important as day care for those under five. One reason is the sad growth of one parent families. I understand that one family in eight is now headed by a lone parent. Another reason is the need for a safe place for children to be cared for when parents are unable to be present. Studies show that more than 20 per cent. of five to 10 year-olds are left alone during school holidays, and 15 per cent. are left alone after school. The National Out of School Alliance feels that there is a variety of reasons why children over the age of eight and up to the age of 14 remain vulnerable. Children in this age group are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse, as has been shown by statistics from the NSPCC and others. They are also more prone to accidents it the streets and in the home. As the law stands at present, no child under 12 may be left alone with an open fire, which I imagine to mean a coal fire. This law surely needs to be updated. Today there are electric fires, gas fires and paraffin heaters, all of which are a potential danger to a child. Should not the age of the child be raised to 14 rather than 12? Will the Minister bring this question to the Government's notice?
With an ageing population, the care of the elderly in the community is a concern to all of us. As has been pointed out to me, many of the carers are not young themselves and see life passing by without the opportunity to return to work or get out of the house and do some other form of voluntary work if that is what they wish. In rural areas the difficulty is increased by the problem very often of small populations spread over a larger area. The migration into towns and cities of young people seeking work and the migration into the countryside of pre-retired and retired people has in many areas caused quite a dramatic change in the age structure of local populations. In very remote rural areas many of the large voluntary advice agencies do not operate. This can lead to people not always knowing what help is available. It is estimated that 58 per cent. of all carers have physical or mental problems or emotional problems from caring, especially in remote areas.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes is looking into the problems of child care and nursery provision for children in rural areas. In Hampshire the Rural Community Council is carrying out research into the availability of child care facilities to allow mothers who so wish to return to work. The problems of child care in rural areas is obviously more difficult than in urban areas. The Women's Institute also does valuable work in keeping an eye
272
on the elderly who can no longer get to its meetings. It also helps with meals-on-wheels.
Child care provision could come from voluntary groups, local authorities or the private sector. We need to ensure that it is all well regulated and of high quality. Effectively, the only way that this can happen is if the Government take the lead, draw on the expertise and experience of the voluntary sector which already exists and encourage the private sector to co-operate.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I followed the noble Lady, as always, with close attention. However, I am sure that she will forgive me if I move on to other ground. I rise with even more than my usual diffidence. I was told just before I came into the House that I had completely misunderstood the Motion. If that proves to be so in the view of the House, and someone cares to move a Motion that I no longer be heard on the grounds of irrelevance, I shall not take it amiss. I can only hope that the Motion will not be carried; but we shall have to see what happens.
I was so eager, as I always am, to support the noble Baroness that when I saw the reference in the Motion to community care for the elderly I jumped at the chance to participate in the debate. I then prepared some remarks on the subject which will no doubt, fit in with the general discussion. Another reason for my diffidence has occurred within the last few days. When I last spoke on this subject, I followed the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. On that occasion she made a striking speech when initiating the debate on the infirm and elderly. I boasted, if I may put it this way, that I was the only person taking part who was aged over 80. However, that qualification has now been challenged by virtue of a letter which appeared in yesterday's edition of The Times. It is a long letter from two gentlemen, one of whom is a Member of this House. It is headed "Unfit to govern after 80?" These two writers have become very worked up about the whole Chinese business. It has upset them so much that they say:
"is it not time for all governments"—
including ours, no doubt—
"to set up machinery, so that when leaders attain (say) their 80th birthday they automatically relinquish the fullest powers which go with responsible representatives of the people?"
That would rule out, at any rate, a certain number of Members of this House. One of the authors of the letter is, I believe, an eminent Liberal. It may be that he has forgotten that Mr. Gladstone formed his last Cabinet when he was 83 years of age.
However, leaving that issue aside, I ask the House how much we would have lost if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, had been banned 10 years ago under this rule. Indeed, we have only to think of all the valuable contributions he has made. Therefore I am pleased to be absolutely silenced by these eminent gentlemen who wrote to The Times.
I should like to quote from one or two speakers who spoke during the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I shall pass over the admirable contributions made by my own party colleagues, and

273
others. But I should like to quote some remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am sure that she has apologised to the Minister for her absence. However, she told me that she hopes to be present in the House later. As was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lady Turner, she speaks with special authority on the subject of carers. She is president of the National Carers' Association. I am not sure when the word "Carers" came into being. It is not perhaps a very attractive word; but I think it is probably the best one available. On that occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was very blunt in her account of the present situation. She said that good community care at the moment, except in a few cases, is a mockery. She said that it does not exist. Well, so spoke the president of the National Carers' Association, and surely she ought to be listened to.
The truth of the matter is that most of us by this time would agree that the whole idea of community care came into existence as what seemed to be an easy alternative. The phrase, "an easy alternative" means an alternative to keeping large numbers of people in institutions. Indeed, everyone agreed that these people should be taken out of the institutions and it was just assumed that something called community care would take care of them.
The concept of community care is full of ambiguities. It is of course true that all of us in a sense, as members of the community, have some responsibility for all these disadvantaged people, or for people who need help. On the other hand, when we talk about community care we mean in practice something which is carried out at the sharp end, so to speak, by carers. In that same debate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, summed the matter up when she said, among other things, that she wanted to raise the issue of the need for more carers, more support for existing carers and appropriate education for them. She also emphasised the need for more facilities to meet the varying needs of the elderly and the families and friends who care for them.
That pinpoints, as you might say, the issues with regard to carers. However, I should like to reflect for a few minutes on the subject of carers which I hope will be linked to what the noble Baroness had in mind. When we think of carers we can of course include people who care for others in the home. I quite agree with those who say that that is at least as friendless as any other form of care. Indeed, I would not say that I was capable of any form of care. However, I think that I would be more capable of caring for someone in a community as part of a team than I would be if living at home with a sick relative with no one to turn to. I think that I would be quite hopeless in that situation. Moreover, that is probably true, if I may say so, of quite a few of the male Members of this House. I am not for a moment underestimating the need for such care in the home, but in these few remarks I am talking primarily about community care in the sense of the kind of care which is provided in one sort of community centre or another.
274
A week or so ago I visited a splendid old persons' centre run by that marvellous organisation, Age Concern. There I saw, among other activities, ladies from 60 to 90 performing vigorous exercises; indeed, at least one of them was in her eighties and claimed to be older than me, and that is saying something. Nevertheless, these ladies between the ages of 60 and 90 were performing vigorous physical exercises. They had been working up to the event for almost a year. It was now the summer term and there they were going at it for an hour in a way which would have done credit to any Member of this House, however young. That is one form of care for the elderly; namely, keep fit classes.
I then asked about the gentlemen, because there was only one man present—although, in theory, the centre was open to both sexes. He seemed rather somnolent. Indeed, I am no sure whether he woke up to the proceedings at all. I was told that the men come for lunch, but after that not much is seen of them. Noble Lords can draw whatever conclusions they wish from that example. I know it is argued that women live longer than men and we have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, that they are more vigorous than men. The fact of the matter is that anyone can go to a keep fit class. But, in the one that I visited recently the only active people present were women. However, no one can doubt the dedication of the carers, the members of staff, who were looking after those people. It must be said, however, that in that instance they were dealing with fairly vigorous people.
A few days later I visited a hospice for the dying. I understand that we shall be discussing this issue within the next few days in connection with an amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. There was of course tremendous dedication in that hospice. People were there for about three weeks before they died. Obviously that is a different sort of care. I asked one of the devoted staff how she coped with the situation of dealing with dying people day after day. She answered under 3 headings. I suppose that she had been asked the question before; but she certainly knew what she thought about the matter. She said that in the first place she was one of a team and that she offered this care, shared the suffering and tried to alleviate the suffering as much as possible. She said that when she shared their suffering she did not do so as an individual; she did so as part of a team. As I said earlier, in that respect she is more fortunate than someone caring for a stricken person in the home.
Secondly, she said that she needed respite. That was a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the earlier debate; and, indeed, it was used by many other speakers in today's debate. She said that it was impossible to provide this care continuously without a break of some kind. She could continue day after day, month after month and even year after year; but she always needed a regular respite. Of course that means that someone has to organise things or provide the resources so as to enable such respite to be given.
Thirdly, she said—and she was a religious lady—that at the end of the day she offered the work which she had done to God and said, "This is no

275
doubt insufficient; I leave you to do the rest." I am not saying that a government can cope directly with the last of those aspects. They can cope with the first two. The Government could make it possible for carers to have far more support. I am sure that is where the present Government, and no doubt previous governments, have failed.
On the last occasion I made what I suppose would have to be called a party speech in the sense that I was critical of the Government. I said—and I believe it—that the Government are trying to cope with the elderly on the cheap. I repeat that. I do not want to kick a man when he is down. Still less do I want to kick a woman when she is down; and so I shall not say anything nasty about the Government tonight.
I shall quote one or two figures which should be borne in mind that have been passed to me by Age Concern. The Family Policy Study Centre has estimated the value of care provided by informal carers as between £15 billion and £24 billion a year. The invalid care allowance is currently £26·20. It is poor compensation. It is not available to carers earning more than £12 a week. In other words, great stinginess is shown towards carers. The noble Lord can hardly put that right this evening, but I hope that he will tell his colleagues that there is a strong feeling that greater generosity is needed. I said generosity, but perhaps I should call it justice.
I gave the noble Lord notice of another aspect that I wished to mention; but he has hardly had the time to look into it deeply. When I visited that fine centre the other day, not all the people were doing PT. Some of them were playing bingo, which is much more restful. They were all apparently able-bodied. It was impossible for a disabled person to make his way into the centre because it was not built for that purpose. I am not sure whether someone on a couple of sticks would have fitted in very well. There is a problem. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the question although he will not have had time to look into it. Even in their more generous moments, how do the Government see the future of the disabled elderly? I am not talking of people who are so disabled that they are in a home. I am talking about when they can be taken to a centre as some are at present. There are centres where the disabled mix with other people. What guidance can the Government give about the disabled elderly?
I shall end on a different note. I wish to emphasise that I agree with the general thrust of what the noble Baroness said. I speak as an ardent feminist. I am a complete feminist in everything except abortion, if that is a feminist cause. I almost always support the noble Baroness.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for initiating the debate, and for introducing it so well. I am always delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because he is one of those brave men who always speak in a women's debate. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has joined him because all the other Back-Bench speakers are women, which is a shame. Apart from those summing up, 25 per cent. of the speakers are men.
276
This is an interesting and apt subject for us to be discussing, because earlier this year the Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Norman Fowler, urged women to seize the job opportunities waiting around the corner; and John Patten, as we have all read in the newspapers, has been charged with getting women back to work and seeing what can be done on that issue. He is chairman of the ministerial group on women's issues. He has indicated that the 1990s will be a decade in which childcare will form a substantial part of a package for working women. The important point was that he said that it would be more important than health insurance, mortgages or company cars.
Company cars are the big issue. Men and women alike are entitled to have a company car and pay tax on the benefit of that company car. They do not pay the full value of the cost of the company car but merely the assessed value, according to the size of the car. There are scales. On the other hand, women who have a workplace nursery facility are taxed on the total cost per child. There is no parallel with the company car. I believe it is as important. I see that John Patten has also indicated how important it will be. Why is there no parallel between the tax on a company car and the tax on the benefit of a workplace nursery? The Inland Revenue cannot say that there is no precedent to follow. There is a precedent. That is a good parallel.
I am not sure that workplace nurseries are the complete answer. I went to speak at a women's conference in Yokohama last year. It was one of the items that we discussed widely there. It was agreed that if where a person worked was in easy reach of home then a workplace nursery was suitable. Anyone who has seen the Underground system in Tokyo realises that it is even worse than London Transport. There are officials pushing one on to trains. It is not suitable to have to take one or more small children on public transport and to travel any great distance at peak hour to a nursery. A crèche within easy reach is in many cases much more suitable than a workplace nursery. Similar tax arrangements or benefits should be offered to women who use such a facility rather than only those attached to the workplace.
I understand that the average cost is now about £5,000 per child per creche place. It is an expensive benefit on which women are taxed. If they are earning only a little above £8,500, they have to pay a terribly large slice of additional tax out of their income.
The position of the elderly is different. The only point in the wording of the Motion with which I might have taken issue is that it refers to "join the workforce". I believe that it should be to join and rejoin the workforce. In many cases someone who has given up work to have a child or care for an elderly relative may wish to go back to work. They may need to go back to work to earn an income.
With regard to the elderly, I came across an interesting case a few weeks ago. It relates to a neighbour of mine aged 90. She lives on her own and copes marvellously well. She could just as easily have a daughter with her or someone who wanted to go back to work. To maintain herself alone during

277
the day, she needs easy access to a telephone so that people can telephone her and she can telephone out. Her one difficulty is mobility. If the telephone rings, she takes a long time to walk to the telephone, and by the time she gets to it the person may have given up ringing.
I telephoned British Telecom to ask what could be done. Before I telephoned, my neighbour had telephoned. She told me that she could not get anywhere at all. I then suggested to a friend of mine that she telephoned British Telecom. She did not get anywhere. Being an Australian and rather disbelieving, I said that there must be an answer and that they must be getting on to the wrong department. I went through everyone at British Telecom. Its staff will run round and fit anything one wants, if one knows what one wants. I asked whether they had anyone who could act as an adviser t o an elderly or disabled person who could assess the situation of the 90 year-old lady in order to see what should be done. I was told that there was no one. I said that I could not believe that. I know that the gas and electricity authorities have special advisers who will visit and show one what to do and what to fit in order to make life easier if one is disabled, ill or unable to reach things.
To me it was staggering that there was no assistance with telecommunications, which is perhaps one of the lifelines to people left at home during the day. Anyone leaving an elderly relative who could cope quite well at home might wish to be reassured that they were all right by being able to phone them, or by having them able to phone and say that they were all right. It seemed amazing to me that there was no assistance. I asked who was responsible for that and they said, "Oh, we think you should have your local social services round to do that". The social services are very willing to come; but they are not experts on telecommunications. It seems to me that there is a need for some liaison there. Fortunately, we eventually solved the problem. We found a solution, a way round it. But we had to do it ourselves. It seems wrong to me for it not to be easier for people to obtain advice on the problem.
While on this subject of British Telecom, I feel that the survey carried out about a year ago on women's willingness to take managerial posts was interesting. There was a great reluctance on the part of women. About 35 per cent. said that they would not consider taking on managerial responsibilities because their commitments to child care or for elderly relatives was so great that they could not really afford promotion unless better social facilities and help were available to enable them to combine their commitments at home and at work.
Child minders have been mentioned. I was most interested in what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said about the check that could only be carried out on the properly registered child minders. When I was chairman of the social services committee locally, one of our greatest problems was the illegal child minder who was neither checked nor assessed in any way. No one knew whether or not the safety standards existed. It seems to me that the system
278
whereby the money can only be used if it goes to a child minder who has been checked and approved is very good. I was pleased to hear about it.
Another minor point on the taxation issue is that, as noble Lords know, there will be separate taxation for men and women from 1990. One of the provisions is that allowances will be transferable between husband and wife. That is quite a significant point. It means that the woman who chooses to stay at home, and who may be making a financial sacrifice to do so will at least have some provision in tax terms to help her. The other provision which I am suggesting would help the woman who wishes to return to work. I think that both sections of society should be assisted.
Child illness is a great problem for the working mother. If a child is ill unexpectedly, or possibly has an infectious disease, he will not be accepted at a nursery, and the mother immediately has to miss work or make arrangements for a relative or someone else to stay with the child. That is a real problem.
The other considerable problem is school holidays. Very few employers can merely employ someone seasonally during school terms. Again, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, raised the point about care after and during school. I believe that it is essential that ways should be developed of keeping children occupied and safe, as well as doing interesting new activities which broaden their education during the school holidays. It is not fair for a working mother to be faced with the worry, "Where is my child when I am at work?" As regards the child sent home unexpectedly from school, a number of schools have told me that they find it safer to keep the child at school because of the danger of sending him home to an empty house.
There are many other points which I should have liked to cover but I do not have the time. For example, the situation of war widows. I shall bring that up under the social security Bill because I should like them to receive a better deal. Many of them are elderly and a lot could be done to help them, particularly in terms of the housing benefit.
I have been asked by women elected to local government to raise another point. They feel it is very important for more women to be elected not only to local authorities but to Parliament. In the past the provision was that a woman who either had to employ someone to look after small children or to care for an elderly relative could claim an allowance. For example, magistrates can now claim an allowance for that, but at present it is not allowed for most women. Therefore it goes against women who have such responsibilities and deprives them in many cases of the opportunity to be elected. I gave my noble friend notice that I intended to raise that point because I believe that the more women are elected to different bodies, the more help will be provided regarding the subject of the debate. That is why it is relevant to bring it in here.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like other speakers in the debate, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for introducing the debate on a subject of central importance to us

279
all, not just to women, not just to mothers but also to fathers; not just to daughters but also to sons; not just to employees but also to employers.
Social policies can no longer rely on the unpaid labour of millions of women caring for those sections of the population who are unable to care for themselves. Women, like men, wish to contribute to the wider society by taking their place in the world of work outside the home as well as inside it. Only by doing so can women achieve fulfilment in their lives as well as the measure of economic independence which all of them deserve.
To deny them this opportunity is socially unjust. To asume that they do not want it is completely false, based on an old-fashioned and reactionary view of gender differences which is totally out of tune with the world of the 1980s. But not only is denying women the opportunity to have jobs discriminatory and unfair, it is also economically wasteful. Women have qualifications and skills which the economy cannot afford to ignore. This is already apparent. As my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden has already said, it will become even more apparent in the next decade as the number of young people entering the labour force declines steeply. Labour shortages will certainly emerge unless we employ the maximum number of women possible. So there are issues of principle about the need for greater equality between the sexes and issues of a pragmatic kind about the future needs of the labour market.
I wish in particular to focus on the needs of women with young children and the need for massive improvements in day care provision for their children. Neither day nurseries providing all-day year round care, nor nursery education providing care and education during the school day and term time have expanded as they needed to, to meet new needs and new demands. Indeed, the growth of publicly-funded day nurseries has been absolutely minimal since 1979. The number of places in nursery schools and nursery classes is far below the target that Mrs. Thatcher herself set for them when she was Secretary of State for Education in the early 1970s. She has presided over a government which have done nothing to help local education authorities expand in this area. Was she wrong in the 1970s to be in favour of such expansion and right now, to be opposed to it, or at the very least indifferent to it? Or was she right then but wrong now? She cannot have been right in both periods. Unlike my noble friend, Lord Longford, I think that she deserves a kick, even when she is down, and the electorate obviously thinks so too. Meanwhile, during a period when the UK has stood still, other European countries have made huge improvements in the extent of their provision. Some countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark were well behind us in the early 1970s and they are now far ahead. France and Belgium have had nursery provision for well over 80 per cent. of three and four year-old children for many years, as well as providing for a much higher proportion of younger children than is the case in the UK.
Not only are there more places available in most European countries with a higher proportion of the
280
age group being catered for, but the provision is often also much more closely geared to the needs of mothers with jobs. A part-time nursery place in a primary school for two to three hours either in the morning or the afternoon is not much help to a woman working full-time. Of course it is better than nothing, but she will have to make complicated arrangements for the rest of the day and for the school holidays, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has already said. In future child care provision must involve a combination of good nursery education and care to cover the hours of the working day. It is essential that both the elements of education and of care are properly covered.
There are a variety of ways of doing this. I must say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on workplace nurseries. They do not seem to me to be the solution for most working parents. However, there are a number of other ways. First, the number of local authority day nurseries which, as I have already said, has remained pathetically few, should be expanded, focusing particularly on the needs of mothers with under-fives. All day nurseries must involve good quality education at this vital period of learning in children's lives. That means that some of them, although they are not directly run by local education authorities, ought to be getting good advice from the education authorities or employing teachers.
Secondly, there could be more full-time places in local authority nursery schools and classes. We have, I believe, moved much too much in the direction of converting what used to be full-time places in these classes into part-time provision. Thirdly, there could be an extended school day between 3.30 and 5.30 or 6 for those children whose mothers have full-time jobs. Finally, we might make more use of registered child minders as a back-up to nursery classes provided by the local education authorities. What I have in mind is a system in which women with three or four year-old children who do not want to work, perhaps because they have a much younger child, would look after another three or four year-old for a small payment in the school holidays and at the end of the school day. Informal arrangements of this kind are sometimes made but parents would be greatly helped if a system of this kind were set up based round the local school, and certainly all child minding should involve registration to prevent possible neglect or abuse.
The problem of adequate child care does not stop when children start compulsory education at the age of five. Again there are the school holidays to cater for, and the gap between the end of the school day and the end of the working day. Some progressive authorities such as the ILEA, which regrettably the Government have decided to abolish, have had quite extensive networks of play centres in the schools during the holidays and, to a lesser extent, after school. But much more of this kind needs to be done all over the country. Perhaps the Minister replying on behalf of the Government could say a bit about how we are going to catch up with our Community partners with respect to child care generally.
Single parents are particularly badly affected by the failure to make available adequate child care. I

281
was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said about young single mothers. Of course single mothers are in all age groups. We may lament the high rate of marriage breakdown and subsequent divorce, but it is a fact of life, and we cannot turn our backs on it. There are many women struggling to bring up their children on their own. Few of them want to be dependent on the state if that can be avoided. They prefer to earn their living and support their children themselves.
Moreover, for their psychological welfare (which also has spin-offs for their children's psychological welfare) they need contact with the adult world and some time away from the constant demands made by small children. Anyone who has lived on their own, taking sole responsibility for children under five for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, will know just how stressful this can be and how easy it can be to become depressed in these circumstances. A job can give a single mother both the material and the psychological resources to cope better with bringing up children by themselves.
I should like now to turn briefly to the elderly, where once again women bear the brunt of the demands that this makes on families. The fact that there are now far more very old people than in the past, the fact that many of them are mentally infirm as well as physically frail, means that as a society we must invest more in providing publicly-funded facilities to help them. I have mentioned the strains involved in caring for young children. Women at home caring without respite and without support from others for senile elderly parents may be under even greater stress, as my noble friend Lord Longford implied.
Far more women in their fifties are now in full-time jobs than in the past. As a society we should not expect them to give up their employment to care for their elderly relatives. Nor can we afford to lose their skills and experience. Some very old people need full-time residential care. But many others can stay in their own homes as long as community facilities such as home helps and day centres are available.
Facilities of this kind can make the crucial difference. Without them their daughters may have to abandon their jobs; with them they can continue working, and provide some care at the weekends and in the evening. Such facilities are also of enormous importance from the point of view of the elderly themselves. How many times have we heard old people saying, "I don't want to be a burden on my children"? And who can blame them? I can think of few things that would make me more unhappy in my old age than my daughter being forced to give up her career in order to care for me.
We have a huge budget surplus. Can we not use some of it to improve the provision of care for the very young and the very old? Both groups will benefit directly. Young children need pre-school education to learn to cope with social life outside their homes and to benefit intellectually. The elderly need support and also company to reduce loneliness so that they can remain in their own homes for as long as possible.
282
Women have for far too long been exploited as unpaid carers. Few men would make the sacrifices that they have made. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I must express some regret on how few male Members of your Lordships' House have participated in this debate, and I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Longford that he need not have felt in the least bit diffident. I am sure that all noble Baronesses present here will have welcomed his contribution. If only there were a few more male feminists in your Lordships' House.
In the coming years women will be needed more than ever before in the labour market. We must make a commitment to decent public services so that their skills can be used. We cannot simply rely on ad hoc private arrangements. We must also do this to improve the quality of life of the old, the young and of women themselves. For too long this Government have neglected these most important goals. My Lords, it is high time that at last they took some action.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for initiating this debate today; it is both timely and important. As the eighth speaker I have to say that everything that I was going to say has been said, but I propose to say it all again. I propose to do so because it will show that we are all thinking along the same lines and that we all consider the matter to be important.
May I first concentrate, as others have done, on the child-care facilities which will enable more women to join the workforce. As other noble Lords have said, due to the fall in the birth rate in the 1960s and 1970s there will be in the region of a million fewer young people to fill job vacancies. To fill this gap Her Majesty's Government are calling for women to enter the workforce. It is perhaps a sad reflection on our society that the care of children of working mothers shows signs of at last becoming a serious issue, not for the sake of the children but for the sake of getting working mothers into the workforce.
Having said that, I must be fair and pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government, first, for the Children Bill now being considered in the other place and, secondly—as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said—for setting up a Ministerial Group on Women's Issues. The group will consider the provision of child care facilities to enable women to go out to work.
Under Part I of the Children Bill the interests of the child are paramount. For the sake of this nation it is to be hoped that in the campaign to attract women into the workforce at all levels the care of children will be regarded as paramount as regards their physical, emotional and educational development.
As has been said, Mr. John Patten at the Home Office is chairman of the ministerial group. The group includes representation from the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland

283
Offices, and many others. Never before has a small child brought together all the ministries to work out a policy.
In the press release of 11th April 1989 Mr. Patten said;
"The family is central to national life, but we must make sure the best possible help is available for women who choose to work",
and that their children are cared for by the method of their choice.
I understand that a five point plan was issued by this great ministerial group. The group recommended amendments to the Children Bill. This was dealt with in Committee in another place. As I understand the position, the Children Bill now includes a provision that child care facilities, both child minding and group care, should be registered and that there should be a follow-up visit to the facilities once a year. That is good news. I am bound to ask my noble friend the Minister: what standards will be established for the physical, emotional and educational care of children? I imagine that there will be regulations, guidance and a code of conduct in this area. It is certainly important that that should be so.
One is also bound to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have calculated the resource implications. Local authorities could not, by any stretch of the imagination, undertake the registration of child minders and group nurseries, of pre-school play groups and other facilities without further resources. Furthermore, the inspectorate of the Department of Health will bear a heavier burden in its inspectorial duties. I dare to suggest that some voluntary organisations will also require financial topping up.
The five point plan also includes a proposal:
"To encourage the providers of childcare and employers to consider the need for a voluntary accreditation scheme which would provide information about the availability of childcare facilities".
In that connection I congratulate the National Childminding Association for its initiative, in conjunction with Mercer Fraser, in setting up a scheme of child care cheques which can be transferred in exchange for qualified child minding. The scheme has been fully explained by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss.
The third point in the plan concerns the use of school premises for out of school activities, both during school terms and in school holidays. Here again, other noble Lords have pointed out that while we press for better facilities for the under-fives is of no help to the working woman—whatever work she does—if there are no facilities for children returning from school to an empty home or during the school holidays. Those can be dreary times for a child. I understand from the police that an enormous number of children commit offences, not out of any ill will but simply for something to do. Also, a number of children find themselves in awkward situations and meet people it would be better for them not to meet.
Perhaps I may ask what action has been taken on that five point plan. The press release of 11th April 1989 indicated that action would be taken. I
284
apologise to my noble friend the Minister for not having given him notice of the question. However, I should be very grateful if I might know the answer. Perhaps he could write to me later.
Work is being done by the organisation Child Care Now, to which 22 organisations are affiliated, to obtain better quality child care facilities which are affordable to the working woman. The Pre-School Playgroups Association also works towards that end, as does the under-five unit at the National Children's Bureau. I should like to know what action has been taken by the committee chaired by Timothy Raison on the education of children under five.
Both in Europe and in this country there is growing awareness of the needs of children. As was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Europe is far ahead of us in the funding of facilities for children. While in this country much good work is being done the European countries seem to have a much better partnership between government, statutory and voluntary organisations.
The research carried out by the National Children's Bureau in the national cohort showed the deep and lasting effect on children of loving care and skills and knowledge directed to their emotional, physical and educational upbringing. In this emerging pattern of development in relation to the needs of working mothers, a consortium must be developed between families, employers, statutory and voluntary organisations and the Government for the care of children of all ages. I say, as I said earlier, that it must be remembered that the needs of the child are paramount.
I had not intended to speak on the second part of the Motion of the noble Baroness. However, yesterday in the debate on the Schizophrenia After-care Bill I asked my noble friend the Minister when the Griffiths Report was to be published. He said, "Very soon". I hardly dare to think that he was right. It was astonishing to read that at last, after so many months, there it was in The Times this morning. However, as has been said before, we still do not know the details of the administration of the Griffiths Report. Community care is good; it is right for so many people who wish for it. However, it is expensive. Like other facilities it will need resources. The debate today has concentrated on two issues: the needs of children and the elderly and the resources required for both those services.
7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have a problem in taking part in this important debate introduced so excellently by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. My problem is that this is a subject on which I have views. I am well aware that there is nothing more dangerous than taking part in a debate in which one has views. One of my views is that I take strong exception—although I know the spirit in which the remark was made—to describing this as a women's debate. I see it as no more a women's debate than I see the Electricity Bill—in which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and I take part day in and day out—as a men's debate.
I do not see those issues as women's issues. I see them, as my noble noble friend Lady Blackstone has

285
pointed out, as issues for all of us. It is a matter that has intrigued me for a great deal of my adult life. When we view the enormous extent to which women are discriminated against in our society, what has always puzzled me is the need, not for an explanation of why women tolerate it, but why men tolerate it. I have no explanation to offer, but I certainly argue that it is at least as important a matter for men as for anyone else.
However, having said that, I am not naive. I am perfectly well aware that the kind of problems that we are debating are problems that women are expected to solve, and that the kind of burdens that we are debating are burdens that women are expected to carry. If we are to achieve what most of us want to achieve—to improve matters—I would still argue that women would carry a disproportionate burden and play an excessive role in dealing with both the young and the old. The role of policy is to improve matters. I for one should like to believe that I would live to see the day of true equality but, to repeat my words, I think that that is possibly a trifle naive.
I am about to do essentially what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has done; namely, to repeat a number of remarks and say how much I agree with them. But there are a couple of remarks made by the two noble Lords who have taken part in the debate with which I disagree. They are to do with retirement. I believe that the old have to give up at some point and let the young have a chance. I do not believe that it is oppressive to the old to suggest that, at about the age of 80, there is an opportunity to step back. One can moan continuously from then—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I assume that one day he will be 80. He looks healthy enough, so I assume that he will make that age. When he gets there, does he mean to give up his attendance in the House?
Lord Peston: No, my Lords, my point was not to do with talking. I assume that the older one gets, the more one has the right to complain about the young. My point was to do rather more with acting. The remark concerned the phrase "unfit to govern". But I go further than that in referring to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because nothing would be more disastrous than to allow elderly professors to stay on even longer. I should regard the idea of introducing flexible retirement for professors as catastrophic. However, those are the only slightly acerbic remarks that I intend to make.
I wish to concentrate on a number of principles, particularly the principles that should guide public policy. In so doing, I must quote from a document that I regard as, on the whole, rather Right-wing—the so-called Social Charter from the European Community. The Government have moved so far to the Right that they regard it as Left-wing. I find that a very odd interpretation. However, the Social Charter contains a rather forthright statement that I should very much like to endorse. In paragraph 21, it states:
"Equal treatment for men and women shall be guaranteed".
286
That is my belief. I should like to believe that one day that will happen. The document goes on to say:
"Equal opportunities for men and women shall be developed and to that effect action shall be intensified to ensure the implementation of the principle of equality between men and women in matters of remuneration, access to employment, social protection, education and vocational training and career development".
Those seem to me to be good statements of principle and I think that they can guide us in what we wish to see happen.
How are we to achieve those aims? First, I think that we should agree that there is a role for the Government here. As noble Lords will see in a moment, we disagree about the scale of that role. But I believe that this is not a matter that can simply be left to the market or to the private sector. I shall have a few words to say about that, but it seems to me that there is a role for government. We shall see that government role in two ways.
Those of us on this side of the House will see that government role in terms of at least encouraging, if not guaranteeing, equitable treatment of men and women and of giving some leadership in that regard. But, since that desire for something nearer to equality and equity is supposed to be out of fashion these days, there is another case to be made; namely, that the kind of policies that have been referred to in this field, whether they are at the nursery school and child care end or at the care of the elderly end, are highly productive. The case for nursery schooling in particular has been demonstrated time and again not merely in terms of encouraging women to return to the labour force—that is what the debate is about—but in terms of enormous productivity in later education and, in my view—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made that point—in terms of the better social behaviour of children.
However, my own view is that assisting carers who help the elderly via tax concessions and other such means is also highly productive. My interpretation—I too await the response to the Griffiths Report in this respect—is that it is an efficient way to deal with the treatment of the elderly, the infirm and—as my noble friend Lady Turner mentioned when she referred to the excellent letter that she received from the Alzheimers Disease Society—the very mentally frail elderly. In so far as we can encourage carers to help us—they cannot solve those problems entirely—that is the most efficient way of doing so.
It therefore seems to me that the Government could reasonably provide tax concessions at both ends of the spectrum. On the general tax treatment question—here I again follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—it has always puzzled me as to why the provision of creches and other such facilities in the firm are treated as a taxable benefit. Apart from the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that women in the workforce pay taxes on the income that they earn—as the Treasury takes a slightly Gladstonian view by judging everything by the state of the revenue, it should encourage that—surely one could argue on perfectly sound economic grounds that the provision of creches is one of the costs of going to work. It should not be

287
included in income; it should be set against income as an allowable cost. I should like to see a tax reform whereby one can set the costs of that sort of thing against income before tax is levied. In other words, I take exactly the opposite view to the Inland Revenue in that matter.
That enables me to make a fundamental point that has been implicit in what has been said. My noble friend Lady Turner referred to joining the workforce, but, with due respect to her, that is a misuse of language. The woman in the home is part of the workforce; she just happens to be part of the unpaid workforce. The Motion should read, "to enable women to join the paid workforce", but there is no difference between us as to whether it should be "join" or "rejoin" the paid workforce. That is an important matter. We must realise that it is not a matter of women of leisure somehow being encouraged to do a little work for a change. It is a matter of women who work extremely hard being able to improve and vary their lives by taking part in paid work for a change. I therefore argue the case for improved tax treatment and for tax concessions of all sorts.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has any material on the subject but another way that the Government could help is to show that they themselves are a first-class employer in this area. I wonder about the extent to which creches are available in Whitehall. It is a little while since we have been in power—a fact that is always being rammed home to us—but certainly in my day I do not recall there being any creches in the government departments with which I was familiar.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may say that there has been a lot of publicity recently about a Treasury creche which is now operating.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. When I was a junior economist in the Treasury I was also a young father and I should have liked my children near moaning away during the course of the day. The Treasury creche at least shows that the Treasury is a first-class employer. Indeed, I should like to hear more on that subject.
I understand that the public service itself is increasingly trying to introduce flexibility and take a more progressive view with regard to promotion. However, I believe that the Government have a duty to be a first-class employer in this area.
Reference has been made to the ministerial steering group on women's issues. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Faithfull, referred to it. Obviously they are both full of hope about this group. I hope that I am wrong in being rather cynical about it. For the moment it seems to include everything—every kind of sympathy and talk. It has everything but stops short of actually doing something. However, I shall wait and see. It may well be that in due course it will actually lead to some action from the Minister, as it were. In particular, I do not want to be told that this is a matter that can be left simply to encouraging the private sector.
288
There was a superb document published in May by the Department of Employment, I think. It is called The Labour Market Quarterly Report. I say perfectly sincerely that this is an excellent document about the labour market. It is full of enormously interesting factual material on the labour market and in particular it brings out the enormous importance of women in the labour force over the next 20 years. That is all very well described. There is a great deal said about the need for employers to take action of various kinds but there is literally nothing said about what the Government might do. I find that omission very worrying. However, for the moment, I shall hold back and wait for Mr. Patten's eventual report from his group.
Someone—and particularly a professorial someone—who has views can talk about matters of this kind for a very long time, but we are all anxious to hear the noble Lord's reply. Let me therefore reiterate my two main points. Firstly, this is overwhelmingly a subject that concerns us all. It is very much a subject that has to be served continuously through time and which takes a long time. In particular it is not a subject that can be left just to the workings of the market. It is not a subject about which it can be said that we can rely on economic forces and need nothing else. Indeed, my great fear is that we may use women in the labour force a great deal more. We may simply opt for economic solutions to our problems and as a result create a great many more social problems which our successors will have to solve.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should hate to enter into the argument between the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his noble friend behind him concerning age. I certainly think that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is by reason of age fit for government if possibly not by reason of his political affiliations. The noble Earl said that he spoke as the oldest Member taking part in the debate; I speak as the youngest. I hope that that does not disqualify me.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was unable to take part in the debate, but I understand that she had an important meeting to attend. I am sure that we have all missed a great deal by not hearing her speak this evening. Like all noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this debate. It has been a very good debate, and I hope that I can be of some help as I sum up. I have quite a few points to make and we have a little more time than was first thought; but I shall try not to speak for too long.
The noble Baroness has drawn attention tonight to those carers, particularly women, who would wish to pursue some form of employment or self-employment or who wish to practise a profession but are unable to do so because of the need to care for a child or elderly person. I have every sympathy with the difficult position in which such people may find themselves. The Government want everyone, whatever their personal circumstances, to have the greatest possible freedom to order their lives.

289
In an ideal world it would be a matter for personal choice whether someone withdrew from the employment field to care for a child or some other dependent relative or whether they went out to work in what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, described as "paid work" rather than doing unpaid work at home. In practical terms, that must mean at least that informal carers should be involved in decisions about care, along with the dependent persons themselves if they are capable of doing so. The noble Baroness raised the subject of informal carers and quite rightly paid tribute to them. The Government are mindful of the vital role that they play and acknowledge the importance of ensuring that information and support are provided to address their particular needs. Respite and other forms of support can also be provided by local authorities and voluntary organisations, whose valuable contribution I acknowledge.
We have mounted studies, including a major piece of work being done at York University, to gather more comprehensive data about carers. We are making grants of over £1 million a year to voluntary organisations concerned with the interests of carers. We shall continue to examine the role, contribution and, above all, the needs of carers and bear them firmly in mind as we carry forward our community policies.
In outlining the Government's position on women caring for children or elderly dependants at home and their paid employment I should like to dwell briefly on our policies and services for children and elderly people and on our policies for the employment of women.
The Government believe that basically responsibility for the provision of care must rest with the individual and his or her immediate family.
For the vast majority of children the best people to decide on what is best for them and the family as a whole are the parents, who should make suitable arrangements if they want or need help with their upbringing. Similarly many elderly people and those caring for them prefer to make their own arrangements for care, and an increasing number are able to do that.
The Government's role then is strictly an enabling one. Our main concern is the overall direction of policy, deciding the level of resources to be made available to statutory authorities and providing for the planning of services and the spread of good practice by publicising new and innovatory projects. Responsibility for the provisions of health and social services rests with the statutory authorities although, as we all know, an increasing range of services is now being provided by the private sector. Nor must we forget the work of voluntary agencies which have done so much for so many years.
Our view is that the overall pattern of provision must be left to local decision-making with local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations, the private sector, parents and carers as well as employers, all involved. We do not specify the level or the type of services to be provided in any locality. This must reflect local needs and
290
circumstances and the overall level of resources available.
My noble friends Lady Gardner and Lady Faithfull mentioned the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues. There are many issues affecting women which cross departmental boundaries. In 1986 the Government set up the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues to act as a forum where interested departments could discuss them. The group began to examine day care services for young children and their relationship to equal opportunities and women's job prospects. The group is paying particular attention to ways in which employers and voluntary bodies could help the development of services which both support the family and give greater choice of service to those women who wished to work.
Women are already making a crucial contribution to our economic wealth. There are 11 million women who are economically active. I am talking obviously about those who are economically active. We accept that those who are at home looking after persons as informal carers are also active, if not economically. Those 11 million represent 43 per cent. of the civilian labour force. We already have a higher proportion of women working than any other EC country, with the exception of Denmark. Many women have benefited from the more flexible working patterns which have developed in the new technologically based and service industries. Women are helping to create new jobs. A quarter of the self-employed are now women. Over a third of entrants to the enterprise allowance scheme are women. Women are also choosing new careers in increasing numbers. In medicine, dentistry and the health service, half the students are women; and the same applies in law and accountancy. Increasingly in engineering women are occupying a greater share of the jobs.
If working patterns are to help people with family responsibilities we believe that employers should take the lead in conjunction with the unions. As an employer the Government have adopted a very positive approach to enable women in the Civil Service to meet their family responsibilities and have a proper career.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether things had improved since his days in the Civil Service. Perhaps I may briefly mention five steps that the Government have taken to help their employees to combine careers and families. We now offer a career break scheme which provides staff with up to five years' leave for domestic reasons. There are opportunities for part-time working or job sharing. Twenty holiday play schemes are now up and running. More are in the pipeline. Some departments are considering setting up day nurseries as a service to retain experienced staff. All departments offer flexible working hours. This helps staff to combine work and family. As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes added, the Treasury also offer a crèche. I cannot speak for my department because I did not ask, but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it would be quite typical for the Department of Health not to have a crèche.

291
However, that is by the way. It would be worth asking whether Ministers, and not only civil servants, are allowed to use it if it ever becomes available.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should be very pleased to use it if we had one. I have an infant son of one year. I am sure that if my wife were in London, she would find it most convenient to be able to leave him here. I shall find out whether the Department of Health has a creche and I shall let the noble Lord know.
I am glad to say that a number of companies are also setting a good example. Esso, BP Group, ICI, IBM and the leading banks have all introduced schemes to allow women to interrupt their careers in order to have children and to bring them up during their early years. Rank Xerox have seized on new technology to expand opportunities for people to work at home.
We are firmly against a rigid, prescriptive approach. This would put employers in a straitjacket and threaten jobs. But we warmly welcome the voluntary introduction by employers of other measures such as parental leave and help with child care to attract women returners. The Government are spreading this message at every opportunity.
So much for women and work, my Lords. I should now like to turn to the question of the children. For pre-school age children most people accept that from the age of about three their social, emotional and cognitive development is helped by taking part in some form of group activity with other children and adults. Before that age it often helps if the parent and the child meet other parents and children at, say, a parent and toddler group, toy library or playbus. This gives the parent a chance to meet other people in the same situation, and gives his or her child a chance to extend his or her play experience. For school-age children, after school and holiday play schemes can be a useful and enjoyable service. They can prevent a child coming to harm or becoming delinquent, as one noble Baroness mentioned. They can also help children develop interests and skills. The Government want to see a range of good quality day care services in each area so that parents can choose the one which best meets their and their children's needs. Over the years this country has developed a mixture of provision. It can be provided by the local authority, by individuals such as child minders, by voluntary groups, by private enterprise or by employers. This diverse set of providers is a strength and we want to see it grow and flourish. We do believe it is a proper use of public funds to set up state run day nurseries, after-school schemes and so on for everyone who wants them.
At central government level we are improving legislation on day care services. The Children Bill contains clauses which make clear the role of the local authority as provider of services, as the regulator of private and voluntary services and as the overseer of the range of day care services. When the Bill has received Royal Assent we shall be issuing new guidance to local authorities, and we are continuing to support 11 national voluntary organisations active in the under-fives and after-
292
school field because they make a vital contribution to the diversity and quality of service.
In the under-fives field there has been steady growth in recent years. In 1987 there were 1,800 day nurseries compared with 1,400 five years earlier in 1982, with most of the increase being in the private and voluntary sector. In 1987 there were 68,000 child minders compared with 44,000 in 1982—a remarkable increase. In the last few months there has been growing interest from employers and the private sector in this area and we expect this will lead not only to more provision but also to greater variety, which I mentioned earlier. We welcome this and I should like to take this opportunity to commend the National Childminding Association for its work with Mercer Fraser in developing the child care cheque scheme—which was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss and my noble friend Lady Faithfull—which I hope and expect will be taken up by employers who want to provide some form of day care for their employees but consider a workplace nursery not the best or right solution.
I should now like to turn to support for elderly people. I am happy to be able to say that levels of community support have never been higher. There are now the full time equivalents of more than 52,000 home helps and 15,000 district nurses. In 1987 over 45 million meals were provided by local authorities. All this provision has generally responded to demographic pressure of the rapidly increasing number of elderly people. As we all know, the numbers of 85 year-olds are set to double between 1981 and 2011 to something over 1 million.
However, much remains to be done. The sum of money devoted to community support is enormous. At the present year local authorities are expected to spend £3,592 million on personal social services, 40 per cent. on services mainly used by elderly people. Within the National Health Service expenditure on community health services is now running at some £1,400 million a year. It is vital that we get the most out of these resources. The Social Services Inspectorate has been carrying out a programme of studies into the home help services provided by local authorities and the way they are changing from the housework and shopping service (home help) to home care. That is a service able to provide personal care and emotional support. Two recent reports by the inspectorate, Managing Policy Change in Home Help Services and Managing to Care, contain much that will help authorities to reshape their services and strengthen their management so that they can meet the challenge of the expanding need for care.
One important fact in the availability of services is the availability of trained staff. In the present financial year and in 1988–89 we made over £10 million a year available to support new local authority initiatives in providing training for those working with elderly people. We are also closely watching the progress of the development by the Care Sector Consortium of a national vocational qualification for care assistants.
Health authorities are responsible for the recruitment and employment of community nursing and support staff. We are monitoring their progress

293
towards long and short-term manpower planning through the regional review process and also taking steps centrally which should lead to improvement in the recruitment and retention of nurses.
The question of tax relief was raised by my noble kinsman Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and my noble friend Lady Gardner, who compared it with tax relief on company cars. We recognise that historically company cars have been undertaxed. The tax on company cars was increased in the past two Budgets. I cannot speak for the future as it is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the Government are aware of that anomaly.
To give parents tax relief on child care costs would be inconsistent with the Government's wider policy of looking critically at special tax reliefs, broadening the tax base and achieving reductions in basic rates. It would be expensive: we estimate that it would cost £350 million to give relief to parents who already go out to work, and it would be badly targeted. A quarter of families with children pay no tax and so would not be helped.
I turn to deal with questions raised by various noble Lords including the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Turner, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. They raised the question of the United Kingdom's position on child care and education participation compared with other European Community member states. We do not accept that it is the case that the UK is near or at the bottom. Taking all forms of education and care together, the participation rate for three and four year-olds is over 85 per cent. and may be higher. That figure places us near the top of the EC league.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about the EC draft directive on parental leave. The Government have opposed that directive because we believe that the prescriptive approach is too rigid. The imposition of statutory requirements could affect competitiveness and not meet the needs of all employees. A flexible voluntary approach which meets the needs of both employer and employee is far preferable.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about the age limit for registration of day care services with local authorities. The Government believe that the age limit of eight, proposed in the Children Bill now in another place, is about right. We thought at first that regulation by local authorities should be limited to private and voluntary day care services for the under-fives. However, we have been persuaded that it should be raised. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that services for children who have just started school are regulated—obviously that is a reassurance for parents—and between stifling enterprise and initiative in the development of services for older children.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked about day centres for frail, elderly people. The Government recognise the important part that day care can play in supporting elderly people in the community and in offering relief to carers. Since 1978 regular attendances at day hospital have risen by about 20
294
per cent. The number of places in local authority day centres is up by 16 per cent. Day care covers a wide range of facilities and we wish to encourage the statutory authorities and voluntary organisations which provide them to make the best use of them. We asked the Centre for Policy on Ageing to carry out a study on day care. We are now considering its report and shall take that into account as we develop our community care policies.
My noble friend Lady Gardner asked about telephones for elderly people. I was surprised to hear of the difficulty which she had with British Telecom when trying to obtain help and special facilities for a disabled elderly person, because I understand that it has special equipment for such people. In recent years there have been rapid advances in telephone technology, and dispersed alarm systems have been devised which can provide elderly people with support and reassurance. Ideally, such systems should form part of a package of community care measures, including mobile wardens, and social services and housing authorities have powers to provide them.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about action to be taken on the five point plan and the ministerial group on women's issues. A shadow group of government officials is taking forward the detail of the five point plan and will be reporting that to the ministerial group as the work progresses.
Other speakers tonight have pointed out that we need to get more women into the workforce at a time when the burdens of informal care which so often fall on women are increasing and the population of women of working age is falling.
I recognise that we cannot have our cake and eat it. We need to have regard to both the wishes of women to take their place as part of the workforce and the need to provide formally or informally for the care of children and dependent adults. This balancing act will be successful only if those responsible for community support carefully assess the needs of their community, both present and future, and plan services accordingly, and if employers take all possible steps to help those women who wish to combine work and responsibility for care.
I should like to end my remarks by commenting on Sir Roy Griffiths' Report. It was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I cannot comment on press reports or speculation in today's newspaper. Consumer choice and service planning are both among the recommendations of Sir Roy Griffiths' review of community care. As every Member of this House will know, the Government are giving careful consideration to the complex issues raised by the Griffiths' Report. Although I cannot tonight give any indication as to the proposals we shall be bringing forward as a result of this consideration, I think I can go so far as to say, as I have on probably too many occasions, that the process is nearly complete and that we may expect an announcement before too long. The Government's aim is to promote the development of cost-effective community services and a flexible

295
attitude in employers. We hope thereby to address the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and all those who have spoken this evening.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene a moment. I am disappointed because, although I gave the Minister a text about local government, he has not replied to that point. I wonder whether he has overlooked it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry, I had a note which I must have flicked over accidentally. Local authorities have adequate powers to make provision for councillors to receive such assistance. It is up to each local authority to decide what is appropriate in the local circumstances. Noble Lords may have noticed recent reports of substantial payments being made for babysitting arrangements for a councillor in inner London.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting and well-informed debate. I should like to reinforce what has been said by a number of noble Lords that this is really not a women's debate at all. I am sorry that more noble Lords did not participate but I am very grateful to those who did because I believe that they had a lot to contribute.
Perhaps I may just single out the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, because she made reference to the way in which the Motion was phrased. I absolutely agree with her. Had I thought about that, I should have said "rejoin" the workforce. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Peston when he referred to unpaid work done at home. This Motion was designed for discussion about enabling women to join the workforce outside the home. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords this evening, that is very important. I believe that my noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to the isolation that women often feel if they are confined at home looking after very small children or elderly relatives and how that isolation breaks down if they have the opportunity of rejoining, even on a part-time basis, a workforce ouside the home which brings them into contact with other people and generally widens their social involvement. Of course, I am sure that that is all to the good.
As regards the Minister's response, in some respects I found that rather disappointing. On these Benches it is the view that there should be a great deal more publicly-funded provision for child care, whereas the impression I received from the Minister was that the Government's role is strictly enabling—and I wrote down what he said as he spoke—and it did not seem to me that the Government intended to participate further than that. I believe that we should have a great deal more in the way of public resources available if appropriate and adequate support services are to be provided both in respect of care of the elderly and children.
On the latter point, I favour a large expansion of local authority provision. Unfortunately, many local
296
authorities have strictly limited resources and are therefore unable to provide resources in the way which I believe is necessary.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, when she says that not everybody finds that workplace nurseries are appropriate. Of course, that is absolutely right. For example, a woman who works in the City can hardly bring her child into work in the rush hour and put him in a crèche in the Prudential offices in Holborn, even if such provision were available. However, we need a range of facilities available. There again, I agree with what has been said about the child minder. I believe that child minding fulfils some need but I should like to see more emphasis on registration to ensure that the child minding provided conforms with appropriate health and safety and welfare standards. As I said in my opening remarks, at present a large number of child-minding arrangements are unregistered.
I really do not agree at all with the Minister's response on the directive on parental leave. As I understand it, he said that it was felt that that was best left to voluntary arrangements. As someone who was once concerned in negotiating with employers, and certainly in negotiations raising with employers the need to improve facilities for female workers in particular and making arrangements for child care and so on, my experience has been that unless there is a lead from the Government nothing will happen. There will be no voluntary arrangements in that respect. I believe that that is regarded in this country as wildly innovative and unless there is pressure from government sources, which would come about if the Government ceased to block the directive, I do not believe that we can expect to see any development in that area.
I should like to see the Government supporting the EC directive on parental leave. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made reference to that. He said that that was an imaginative document and he is absolutely right in that. If we want to see more men taking part in the care of children, as I am sure we do, that seems to me to be one way in which it might be achieved. I was very pleased to hear that the Treasury provides créche and I hope that in due course other departments will follow suit if they have not already done so.
I should like to conclude by saying that this has been a very interesting debate. I believe that this is a subject to which we shall return because there is clearly a great deal to be said about it. It will be a matter for continuing concern because of the demographic problems which we face and because of the need to ensure that there is adequate care for people who need it, such as the elderly and infirm, and also because of the need to ensure that we look after our children properly for all sorts of reasons, not merely to enable women to join or rejoin the workforce. For social reasons we need to ensure that children are properly cared for in their early years. Again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.