Lords Sitting of 17 June 1992

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

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their present policy towards curbing carbon dioxide emissions in Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, our policy is set out in the report on the United Kingdom National Programme for Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions, published last month. Copies have been placed in the Library.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this is the third time that I have asked various Ministers for a straight Answer to the Question. Each time that the Government have published their policy they have made it conditional upon other countries following suit. Following the Rio Conference and the clear assertion by the United States that it will not observe targets, will the noble Lord now tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government still intend to proceed with their promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in this country to their 1990 level by the year 2000?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extraordinary assertion in saying that he has not had a straight Answer. Having directed him towards the report, I thought that that was a very straight Answer.
As the noble Lord knows, we have signed the Climate Change Convention at Rio. I can also tell the House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to the President of the Council of Ministers at the European Community and to the President of the G7 countries suggesting that we go forward together to ratify the Climate Change Convention.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in this as in some other great matters, is it not better that we should set an example to other countries rather than feel that we should keep in step with those who may not have done so well?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course we should set an example. That is why the Prime Minister was the first world leader to announce his intention to be present at Rio. However, we believe that firm action to reduce CO2 emissions has to be taken in step with the remainder of our competitors and the developing world because that is the best way to tackle what is undoubtedly a global problem.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I happen to be in the business of promoting energy efficiency which I believe to be in the public interest as well as, I hope, in the commercial interests of my company. We should be much helped if we knew that the Government's policy on emissions was absolutely firm, irrespective of what any other nation might do. Does the Minister accept that we ought to set an example in this area as other questioners have pointed out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, whatever other countries do regarding their targets on CO2 emissions, we hope that they will ratify the convention with us. We are firm supporters of moves towards greater energy efficiency, as the noble Lord knows with his experience in that field.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the Minister state what progress has been made in the installation of desulphurisation equipment in British coal-fired stations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord's question has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions. However, I understand that substantial progress has been made.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister read the proceedings at the Rio Conference which emphasised the importance of forestry in observing carbon dioxide emissions? In those circumstances does he support an increase of the afforestation programme in the United Kingdom as well as expressing concern for forestry in other parts of the world?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as a former chairman of the Forestry Commission, the noble Lord knows that the Government have an outstanding commitment to forestry. The programme is changing emphasis, with afforestation coming downhill and on to better land. Such a programme will help all our environmental needs.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the general belief is that the Rio Conference was particularly weak on the issue of emissions? I understand that the Bush Administration notes that,
"nothing in any of the language [of the treaty]…constitutes a commitment to a special level of emissions at any time".
Does the Minister believe that, as well as setting an example, the British Government could have pushed the Bush Administration a little harder in order to make the conference more successful?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government cannot be held responsible for what other world leaders and other countries decide is in their interests. However, it is our firm intention to ratify the convention with other countries and to provide leadership. The noble Lord will know that the United States signed the Climate Change Convention. The United States' support of the process is to the benefit of the whole world.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, how much of the total amount of carbon dioxide which goes up into space is the result of man's activities and how much is the result of natural activities such as volcanos?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not have that figure readily available. However, perhaps I can be helpful by telling my noble friend that this country is responsible for some 3 per cent. of the world's CO2 emissions.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that for every cubic foot of carbon dioxide which is put out as a result of burning hydrocarbons a cubic foot of water vapour is generated, which is just as effective a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand, and it has been readily accepted, that there is no clear scientific agreement on global warming. There are certain warning signals of which we would be wise to take note.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister appeared to he pleased that the American Administration had signed the treaty. I was earlier trying to make the point, perhaps clumsily, that the Americans in their administrative comments on the treaty said that nothing in its language constituted a commitment to a specific level of emissions at any time. Therefore, they were not signing any great agreement. Does the Minister believe that our Government should both set an example and press the American Administration more strongly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has never asked a question clumsily and he did not do so when asking the previous question. I believe that the agreement which we signed in the Climate Change Convention is challenging but achievable. For that reason we have said that we shall ratify the convention and we should like all other countries to do so too.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that unless our policy is conditional upon other countries following suit industries will be driven into areas where the conditions are less robust with the effect that carbon dioxide emissions will increase?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. This is a global problem and it needs a global solution.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, will the Government follow the example of other countries and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by supporting a greater use of the railways and by intelligent funding of the same?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a variety of ways and means of achieving our targets and we shall look at them all.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he believed in Britain taking a lead, particularly as other members of the EC have promised targets far in excess of those promised by Her Majesty's Government. I ask the Minister to give the House a straight answer. Will the Government
182
now say that, irrespective of what the Americans do or what anyone else does, the British Government are firmly committed to reducing our carbon dioxide emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2000?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, clearly the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has not listened to anything that I have said during the past nine minutes. I have said that it is a global problem which needs a global solution. Acting unilaterally will help nobody and will cause substantial harm to our industries.

Arab-Israeli Negotiations
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they and the EC are taking to help build confidence among the parties in the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and between the Arab states and Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are active with our European partners in emphasising to all parties the importance of grasping the unique opportunity for peace offered by this negotiating process. As a member of the EC troika, we have a particular role to play. We shall continue to urge all parties to institute confidence-building measures such as an end to Israeli settlement activity and an end to the Arab boycott of Israel.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful Answer. Is it not the case that at present there are little or no postal and telephone links between Israel and its Arab neighbours, with the exception of Egypt? Will the Government press for restoration of those links before a general peace settlement can be achieved?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. I understand that the Government of Israel do not prevent postal services and telecommunications operating between Israel and the occupied territories and the Arab world. I also understand that some Arab countries are not co-operating at present. We would consider it a useful confidence-building measure if those Arab countries allowed the establishment of direct links. We shall see what can be done.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will maintain and keep the British troops in the multinational force which is monitoring the Egyptian/ Israeli border? That measure will certainly build up confidence. It would be a mistake to withdraw the troops.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot commit the Government for all time and in all circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will understand that. So far as I can see at present, there is no reason for change in this matter. We believe that confidence-building measures of the kind which he

183
mentioned, and in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has taken a great interest, are very important. We intend to pursue them.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, would not the recognition of the state of Israel by the Arab states be the most effective means of building peace in the Middle East?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem; and that is the problem for many people. Nor do we recognise Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel. The city of Jerusalem as a whole is a special case, and the status of it has yet to be determined. It is the UK's view that the city should not again be divided.

Wheel Clamping: Private Operations
2.52 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the recent decision of the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh ruling that private wheel-clamping operations on private lands in Scotland are illegal, they have plans to introduce legislation to similar effect in England and Wales.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, until the terms of the recent Scottish judgment have been carefully studied, it is too early to say whether legislation is needed in England and Wales or what form it might take.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is it not interesting that it has been clearly held that to clamp cars on private property in Scotland has been deemed to be illegal by the Scottish court in question—a court of some importance? Is it not right to say that if it is illegal in Scotland, it should be illegal also in England and Wales? Why should England and Wales be discriminated against adversely in that regard?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on his first point that it is interesting; that cannot be denied. With regard to the second point, wheel clamping on private land is the subject of common law and not statute law. Therefore, it is a matter for the courts to decide.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as part of the ruling, the chief justice in Scotland said that the practice amounted to extortion and theft? Has my noble friend found, with all his experience, that Scottish law often provides remedies in such matters where English law does not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend was referring to the comments made by the Lord Justice General. It is often the case that Scotland leads the way. It may be the case that England will follow.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, it is obvious that the law of Scotland is greatly superior to that of England since it needs no amendment to make illegal this practice of extortion and robbery. Nevertheless, did the noble Earl notice that the Lord Justice General remarked that he had great sympathy with people on whose land other people illegally parked their cars? Can he tell us what remedy is available for such people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are other remedies such as barriers or gates, which could be equally as effective but legal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the objection is not only as regards the fixing of a clamp but also the arbitrary fixing of a fine and the fact that the clamp will not be removed until the fine has been paid, against which there is no appeal? Is there no way of ensuring that profit is not made from this even though the vehicle may have been clamped to protect private property?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting point, which we are studying.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the result of the decision by the Scottish court and the comments of the judge who presided over it have received widespread support throughout England and Wales, particularly in London where clamping results in the clamped vehicle being immobilised and therefore becoming a bigger nuisance than the other vehicles? The indiscriminate nature of the clamping and choice of vehicles for clamping is causing the whole scheme to come into disrepute. It is already regarded as nothing more than tax gathering, but it is fast becoming much more than that. As the judge in Scotland said, it is horrific.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that it is far more than tax gathering, because it is becoming a very effective means of improving traffic flow in London. Studies from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory have proved its effectiveness beyond doubt. The level of illegal parking has fallen by more than 50 per cent. since clamping began.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say how traffic flow in London is improved by securing that a vehicle which is obstructing the traffic cannot be moved away?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, because the decision can be made whether to clamp the vehicle or tow it away.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are some areas in which there is a considerable amount of illegal parking on private land? It is only the threat of clamping which can prevent that taking place.
Th Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that problem but there are other methods, which I have already mentioned, which could be used.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the illegality in Scotland lies in the demanding

185
of money rather than in the actual act of clamping? In other words, if a landowner merely clamps an offending car, thereby causing delay and inconvenience to the owner without demanding payment for the unclamping of the vehicle, has no offence been committed?
The Earl of Caithness; My Lords, that is very similar to an earlier question. We are considering that aspect.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the Government consider extending the recent Scottish decision to cover public wheel clamping operations on public land in this country? Private enterprise operations are grossly misconstruing the present regulations in order to promote their private interests at the expense of the public welfare.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the present situation is that the police, under powers in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, are authorised to do the clamping. To date, Parliament has only sanctioned wheel clamping on streets in parts of central London.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any decision in the English courts which has held that it is legal to clamp on private land?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know of any decision. It is a matter to be tested.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people believe that the threatening behaviour of many wheel clampers can be compared to the aggressive antics of 18th century highwaymen, who were rightly hung at Tyburn?
Is my noble friend aware also that last week a vehicle was clamped in front of my garage, obstructing all access to it? The clampers refused to unclamp the vehicle despite being instructed to do so by the managing agents, who claimed that they were being held to ransom. Is it not time that we should at least have a code of conduct, if not legislation, to regulate this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend's plight. He found himself in a difficult situation. I am sure that he will find comfort in the fact that the person whose car was clamped probably will not park there again.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is there a regulation in existence which states that £38 is the total amount which can be charged by the wheel dampers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The release fee is £38.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for the department to issue a code of conduct in order to help people know exactly where they stand?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall look carefully at the regulations. If they are not as clear as the noble Lord would wish them to be, I shall take the matter further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Automobile Association and the RAC have both expressed considerable anxiety in this connection about underhand practices carried out by shady operators? Does he agree that there is a clear need, which is not met at present, for a code of conduct at the very least, if not statutory control? What does the Minister say about that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, regulations have been approved by Parliament in that respect. On-street clamping is permitted only in parts of central London. The situation as regards clamping on private land in England and Wales remains unclear.

Business
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose of Beoch and Lord Hylton. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 13 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, 14 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

Hong Kong and South China
3 p.m.
Lord Mac Lehose of Beoch Lord Mac Lehose of Beoch rose to draw attention to developments in Hong Kong and South China; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the Motion because the retirement of Lord Wilson and the arrival of Mr. Patten in Hong Kong early next month mark the beginning of the last phase of British administration and it seemed to me to be an appropriate moment at which to take stock. I am grateful for the opportunity to have a debate on the matter. I am particularly glad that my noble friend Lady Dunn was able to reschedule her programme to enable her to be with us today.
Lord Wilson has had a notable governorship in which he had to confront many new problems, including the new, close and proper involvement of China in Hong Kong in the period before China takes over. Just when the relationship with China appeared to be progressing satisfactorily it was destroyed by the events of June 1989, three years ago, and by the reaction to them, including the reaction of some people in Hong Kong and the consequent hardening of China's attitude towards Hong Kong. Thereafter, Lord Wilson had the unenviable task of rowing, often

187
against the tide, to get the relationship back to a practical basis on which all the work involved in achieving a smooth transition can be tackled. He addressed it with great courage and skill as well as with total commitment. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to him taking his seat next month.
But if Lord Wilson is to retire I have no hesitation in welcoming Mr. Patten as a replacement. It is a most imaginative appointment but it is a sign of how seriously the British Government take their responsibilities for Hong Kong that for the first time a man who is both a Privy Counsellor and of substantial Cabinet experience should be appointed. At this juncture his great political experience should serve Hong Kong well.
I assume that the appointment signifies no break in continuity of government policy, but a change in governorship inevitably produces a pause, albeit on this occasion there is not the time for a long one. It will be valuable to use the pause to bring this fresh mind to bear on the elements that favour a smooth transition and those that stubbornly appear to threaten it; those that make for a constructive relationship with China and those that do the reverse.
Before he sets out Mr. Patten will have been briefed on all the political difficulties that have made his task what is so often described as awesome. But he will find not a community that is weighed down with political care but one that is most obviously thriving in circumstances of steadily rising prosperity. It is also a community not at all at arm's length with China but, on the contrary, in ever closer economic and social contact with it. Indeed, Hong Kong combines with South China to make up the area of most rapid economic growth in the whole world. That is why I worded the Motion to include a reference to developments in South China, since they have a close bearing on Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's success is based on business which provides the revenue to fund modern Hong Kong, which in turn funds much of the investment in southern China. But the major player in this success story is of course the Chinese Government, to which great credit is due and all too rarely given. It is due to the policy of opening to the world initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 and doggedly maintained ever since in spite of domestic difficulties. It is that which attracted the capital and management and introduced the incentives that produced the regenerated and booming cities of South China and indeed elsewhere. Their greater degree of financial autonomy and significant role for market forces have led to huge improvements in production and therefore to standards of life for tens of millions of people.
The concept of "one country, two systems" embodied in the Joint Declaration and codified in the Basic Law is a product of that Chinese policy. In considering the details of current problems between China and Hong Kong in implementing the Joint Declaration one should not lose sight of the apparent success of China's grand design and of the benefits it is conferring on people in Hong Kong and China
188
alike. It is reasonable to hope that, if the overall design is right, differences regarding detail can sooner or later be resolved.
It is noticeable that the business sector in Hong Kong increasingly takes a confident view of the future. However, on the political side there are indeed differences. To resolve them the importance of achieving a sound working relationship with China similar to that in commercial affairs cannot be over-emphasised. There is a long list of points which need to be agreed to achieve a smooth transition. Moreover, without Chinese support the market simply will not supply capital, as has been shown over the airport. In any event, there can be no confidence in a Hong Kong constantly at loggerheads with a future paramount power.
There is nothing new about China's power and influence in Hong Kong. It has been recognised as a fact of Hong Kong life for many years and Hong Kong has been able to live with it and prosper. However, it has done so with a profile that may have been high commercially but politically low. Since Tiananmen some in Hong Kong favoured a high, even confrontational, stance vis-à-vis China, and China has responded with interest. As the novelist and journalist Frank Ching wrote in the South China Mail on 4th June,
"Three years on it is time to heal wounds".
I am sure that he is right and I hope that Mr. Patten will succeed in doing just that. On a practical note, I cannot see how all the things necessary for a smooth transition can be done unless there is a deliberate move on both sides to let bygones be bygones. Since Hong Kong is the junior partner I suggest that that is where the change should start.
I wonder to what extent our relations are bedevilled by Chinese suspicion that the promotion of democracy at this stage in Hong Kong is to embarrass China or to prolong British influence—a sort of poison pill left behind. Its attitude has been affected by the belief that some of the most vociferous advocates of increased democracy in Hong Kong or abroad also advocated either the overthrow of the present Chinese Government or, if not, dissociated themselves from it. It sees the former Kuomintang/Nationalist threat being replaced by an anti-Peking threat under the cloak of democracy. Nor are the Chinese impressed with the style of confrontational politics adopted by the newly elected groups. That does not seem conducive to a smooth transitional period.
Of course, all that may simply reflect first lively steps in unfamiliar legislative procedures. However, that unhappy background exists and is a fact which I must bring to your Lordships' attention before I turn to the immediate issue; that is, whether there should be more seats in the Legislative Council for members directly elected for geographical constituencies. The British Government said that they will discuss the matter with the Chinese Government. At present there are 18 such seats out of 60. Under the Basic Law and its annexures the number in 1997 will be 20 and in 1999 there will be 30, with the ultimate aim of election of all members by universal suffrage.
To change those numbers would require amendment of the Basic Law. On numerous occasions the Chinese Government have made it clear that the Basic Law will not be amended at present. Perhaps I may add that in all fairness I believe that we would take a similar attitude to any suggestion that the Joint Declaration should be amended. I therefore see no point in pushing against this pretty solid brick wall. However, if the Government feel under an obligation to make the attempt, I hope that they will do so soon and get it out of the way one way or another. As long as there is alleged doubt as to whether the change in the number of seats is possible it represents yet another element of uncertainty. Time is short if all that is necessary is to be done in time for the 1995 elections —elections that will be so crucial if the council then elected is to carry through to 1999, as we all so very much hope.
I feel sure that the Government realise that the views on this issue of elections in Hong Kong are far from unanimous. Some highly articulate and attractive people feel passionately and strongly about it. Many of them are my friends. They had 10 per cent. of the vote. But they are matched by others who, with equal if not greater claims to have the interests of the Hong Kong people at heart, feel that progress should be gradual and cautious. Moreover, there is clearly a very large number of people who are simply indifferent, but who would probably become actively opposed if pursuit of electoral ideals resulted in a damaging row with China that affected the tenor of their lives. I presume that that accounts for the fact that of all the eligible electorate more than 80 per cent. either did not register to vote or did not vote.
Against that background I do not believe that the Government should take this probable impasse too tragically. A large and immediate increase in direct elections to the Legislative Council need not necessarily be the only panacea for Hong Kong's urgent problems or for meeting the right of Hong Kong people to continue their free and stable lives in prosperity. For my part, I would see merit in a determined attempt by all parties, even in the new circumstances of an elected council, to return to the less strident consensus approach formerly favoured in the council.
There has been controversy over who should be appointed to the Executive Council. That body is very important to the Governor, as I know. He takes its advice on all matters of importance. It is up to him to decide how that advice can best forewarn him of public opinion or of opinion in the Legislative Council of what is feasible and what is not. Like Cabinet membership here, it is a personal decision of the Governor. Nobody has hitherto asserted a right to membership. Similarly, there are rules governing the behaviour and freedom to speak of members. Here again, it is up to the Governor to decide whether or not a rule may be dispensed with. In the light of his decision it is up to a member whether or not to serve. This is not a question of human rights but of orderly
190
practice in the Governor's Cabinet. I thought it right to make that point since it has been quite highly publicised.
The list of matters needing agreement between the two governments is very long and I shall not go through it, although I hope that in her reply the Minister will tell us what progress is being made on them. I shall refer to the best known—that is, the financing of the airport. I must admit that initially I had some sympathy with the Chinese for insisting on being fully in the picture about such a vast project the pay-back period of which spans 1997. I also have some sympathy with them over the figures appearing to change, although I am sure that in reality they have not done so. But the replacement of Kai Tak, the westward movement of the harbour, and the opening of new land available on Lan Tao are all now long overdue. I am very glad that the Prime Minister has intervened personally in this matter and lifted the negotiation of detail to Minister of State level. I hope that, with the personal assurance of the Prime Minister, the Chinese Government will soon be satisfied.
I might add that this is a very old project elaborated as long ago as the 1970s. Indeed, it was at one time my own favourite project. I am very sorry that then I allowed arguments against it to prevail. However, the attractive side of it always seemed to me that it was so apparently self-liquidating. That was not only because of the immediate cash-flow from the airport and from the new land opened up, but because the land freed for development at Kai Tak and the Kowloon flight path was among the most valuable in the world and the resultant return to the Government from the land sales and premiums would have been enormous. I am no longer familiar with the details, but I am surprised that, despite explanations, the Chinese Government should still be worried that the SAR might be left with a burden. I should have thought that, on the contrary, it is likely to be left with a sure-fire winner. However that may be, I wish the Minister of State success in his work on this quite fascinating project. I hope that he will take the precaution of arming himself with an interpreter who can master the details involved.
In conclusion, I emphasise two points. The first is that a new zone of prosperity covering a huge area in South China has developed which includes Hong Kong at its heart. It is the most striking economic development in China for many years and it changes one's whole perception of future prospects. The second point is my hope that both sides will now take steps to re-establish the sound working relationships of the 1970s and the 1980s. In that connection I repeat my friend's words,
"Three years on it is time to heal wounds".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord MacLehose really is unique in the depth of his knowledge of Hong Kong. He has done your Lordships a considerable service in the way he has introduced this debate. He has done perhaps an even greater service to Hong Kong, China and to the

191
United Kingdom by instigating it. On a more personal note, he did me the very signal honour of inviting me to join him two months ago on a five-day trip in South China immediately following a week in Hong Kong.
At the end of those two weeks I came away with a number of clear impressions and conclusions, some of which I instanced on 7th May in our debate on Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech. If I repeat some of those this afternoon I do so because I believe them to be important. My own affinity for Hong Kong goes back to 1957 when I was stationed there during my National Service. However, it really took root when I lived and worked there in the mid-1970s and it has grown ever since.
By far the biggest change that I have noted over the past 15 years is what I can best describe as the axis of view. In the mid-1950s China was still very much a potential enemy. By the mid-1970s, while that threat had largely receded, the view of China was still very much "from Hong Kong". Today that has almost totally reversed. As my noble friend Lord Cromer said in his quite remarkable maiden speech on 7th May, his tendency was,
"to view Hong Kong from China, rather than the other way round".—[Official Report, 7/5/92; col. 49.]
I fully concur with that.
The provinces of Guangdong and, perhaps only to a slightly lesser extent, that of Fujien are advancing economically so rapidly that it is now only the political border with Hong Kong that legally separates Hong Kong from the rest of South China.
Hong Kong's economic success story is truly remarkable, and the fact that my contribution will be thin on statistics is solely to avoid repetition with other speakers. Facts and figures regarding South China are perhaps less well known and just some may serve to illustrate the quite incredible —on 7th May I used the expression "mind boggling"—speed of the economic advancement that has been made. GNP in Xiamen, previously Amoy, in Fujien Province has increased by a factor of four-and-a-half in the decade 1981–91. Over that same period, the per capita income of urban residents has increased five times. In Guangzhou, previously Canton, GNP rose at an average rate of 12.3 per cent. per annum over the same 10-year period. Similar statistics apply to Shantou, previously Swatow, and to Shenzhen, previously Shumshun. In all four cities, Deng Xiaoping's "open policy" has been and is being vigorously pursued with emphasis on getting the basic infrastructure in place first in order to cater for the enormous expansion in commercial and manufacturing activities and in population. The improvements in and plans for highways, railways, ports, airports, telecommunications and power generation had me, for one, almost reeling by the end of our five days. And it was not just talk. Of course, our visits to each city being, by definition, short were therefore "organised", but there was no way that one could fail to see the tremendous strides in activity that both had taken place and were still taking place.
Hong Kong is inextricably involved in such activities by way both of direct investment and joint ventures. There are today four times more people
192
working directly or indirectly for Hong Kong manufacturing in Guangdong Province than there are actually working in Hong Kong. In round figures, there are 3 million relative to 0.7 million. Not only is there a very significant two-way flow of capital investment—by the mainland Chinese in Hong Kong and by Hong Kong in mainland China—but there is now a significant move by Hong Kong residents to buy property north of Hong Kong's political border and to commute into Hong Kong to work.
Then there are the smaller but less significant examples that are indicative of economic progress in South China, such as the proliferation of mobile 'phones; the traffic jams; the significant reduction in the number of pedal bicycles, which are being replaced by motor bikes and, to a lesser extent, by cars; the abundance of goods of high quality in the shops; the variety and smartness of clothing and in particular the colourful ladieswear; and the quality, efficiency and technical standards of the hotels. Perhaps the most facetious but indicative example was the necessary use of broad shoulders and sharp elbows to ensure a place in the lift for breakfast on a Friday morning in a revolving restaurant at the top of the World Trade Building in Shenzhen. It is useful to travel with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with his considerable height. In their different ways and at various stages of economic advancement, all four of the cities that we visited reminded me absolutely of Hong Kong some 15 to 20 years ago.
However, as always, such progress inevitably brings its problems, one of which is China's acknowledged necessity to control movements of population from the relatively less advanced hinterland and the north into the far more prosperous areas of South China.
For that and many other reasons, Beijing seems to be pursuing its own brand of capitalism. Certainly in South China it has avoided the catastrophic economic position now experienced in the republics of the previous USSR and to a lesser extent in the previous satellite countries of Eastern Europe. China's brand of capitalism is perhaps one that the world has not seen before—namely, extensive economic freedom coupled with what we might regard as unacceptably totalitarian political control. While the latter may not be to our liking from a Western viewpoint, it is one that, from an entirely pragmatic point of view, I can well understand.
As always with the unique juxtaposition of Hong Kong and South China, the problems are those of confidence and understanding. For the peoples of Hong Kong who will find themselves subject to a very different political regime on 1st July 1997, it is a question of confidence that Beijing will adhere to the terms of the 1984 Joint Declaration as detailed in the Basic Law and an understanding of the basic political position from which Beijing is moving. Perhaps even more important is the necessity for confidence and understanding from Beijing of just what makes Hong Kong tick and of the motives of both Hong Kong and the United Kingdom in continuing to encourage Hong Kong's economic success story.

193
Perhaps I may give just two illustrations on this last point. Inevitably, both are topical and have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. First, there is the continued wrangle over whether the People's Liberation Army should physically have its headquarters on the present HMS Tamar site on Hong Kong Island or at the new base being built on Stonecutters Island which, incidentally, by that stage will be connected to the Kowloon Peninsula. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, has said, there is the continuing "battle" over the financing of the new Chep Lap Kok airport.
It is difficult for the Western mind to ascertain whether Beijing genuinely cannot understand the very laudable motives behind each of those or whether it finds it politically convenient not to understand. Both are classic examples of the continued modernisation and development of Hong Kong where, in my opinion, it is really crazy to block an enormous potential area of development by, in the case of the military, insisting on a maintained presence on Hong Kong Island and, with regard to the airport, ignoring the financial implications of the quite enormous development possibilities of the present Kai Tak airport site. Funds raised from such potential developments, and particularly from the sale of the leases on the Kai Tak site, are integral to Hong Kong's overall financing. They have been included by Hong Kong in its overall calculations but studiously excluded by Beijing, resulting in each party approaching the situation from a significantly different direction.
It will take time and it will take infinite patience, but the rewards are there. Each party—and by that I mean Hong Kong and the United Kingdom on the one hand and China on the other—must do its utmost to appreciate the position from which the other is coming. The present Hong Kong political situation is a very curious one, there being various degrees of what might be described as "opposition parties" but no government party. It may therefore be that the business community of Hong Kong will have to become more overtly political—against its natural inclination, I am sure. Either way, the future of Hong Kong is not, in my opinion, going to be helped one iota by the continued overt push for the acceleration of agreements that have already been made regarding the extension of direct elections. Again, as my noble friend Lord Cromer said last month:
"It would be patronising to the Chinese people to suggest that they require instruction from us about the way in which they ought to determine their own political future"—[Official Report, 7/5/92; col. 50.] —
because that is exactly what Hong Kong will be on 1st July 1997, part of China's political future.
"Unique" is sadly nowadays a rather overplayed word. Of course there will be problems and tensions over the next five years but I really do believe that the United Kingdom (and of course Hong Kong) does have a unique opportunity to hand over a vibrant Hong Kong as a supreme example of how a mixture of Oriental and Occidental capitalism can work to the advantage of all. In South China there are already most impressive examples, particularly in
194
Guangdong. Mr. Patten, as the new Governor of Hong Kong, has a tremendous task in front of him but I have no doubt that he can and will succeed by building on the firm but utterly fair approach pursued by Lord Wilson and indeed by his two predecessors, not least the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch. Given a fair wind and pragmatic restraint I most firmly believe that Hong Kong, as part of South China, will go from strength to strength way beyond 1997.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for the opportunity his Motion gives me to offer in this House my warmest congratulations to Mr. Patten upon his appointment and to promise him every possible assistance in his new and challenging task. At the same time, I should like to pay a public tribute to Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. When he leaves office on 3rd July, after five years as Governor, he has good reason to be proud of his achievements. Under his stewardship, major political reforms have been introduced and the Hong Kong economy has reached unprecedented levels of performance. He will take with him the gratitude as well as the affection of the people of Hong Kong.
Your Lordships know well that Hong Kong is an extraordinary city, full of exceptionally resourceful people. We are probably better qualified, economically and educationally, than any of Britain's colonies to be the masters of our own destiny. Yet history, geography and politics deny us that possibility, and we have had to depend on the governments of Britain and China to determine our political fate.
Today, eight years after the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed, anyone can see that nonetheless Hong Kong has not only put its back into building a future, but its heart, its soul and its wallet as well. An economic powerhouse is emerging in South China, centred around Hong Kong. Thanks to investment from Hong Kong and Taiwan, the provinces of Guangdong and Fujian in South China are enjoying double digit growth. Thanks to the lower costs in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan manufacturers are maintaining their competitive edge overseas, while their own populations are transferring to better paid, more productive tasks in services and the professions.
Economically, 1997 is already upon us. The economies of Hong Kong and South China are integrating with astonishing speed and producing phenomenal benefits for one another. Whichever political theories are debated in China, it is capitalism and the market economy that drive China forward. China's official figures show that nearly 50 per cent. of industrial output in China is now accounted for by the private sector. New issues of shares in China's fledgling stock markets are being snapped up by international investors. The incredible dynamism across the border has in turn engendered in Hong Kong a new level of confidence. The Hong Kong stock market is trading at record levels. Optimism and energy assault the senses wherever you go.

195
This dynamic and positive picture is not, I regret to say, reflected in the political relationship between Britain and China over Hong Kong. Their work was by no means finished when the Joint Declaration was signed and our fate was sealed in 1984. Many important tasks remained to be done in these years of transition. A solid, sustained effort and a collaborative relationship between the two governments were essential. Unhappily, the relationship has become one of suspicion and mistrust, inertia on major issues and endless wrangling over details. There is little point in seeking to apportion blame for this state of affairs: what matters is that the last remaining five years of British administration must be put to better use. The people of Hong Kong deserve no less.
A working relationship with China is not something we in Hong Kong can afford to see turned on and turned off according to political needs or diplomatic whim or editorial pressure, for we, the people of Hong Kong, have to live with the consequences. The appointment of a new governor represents a fresh opportunity to break out of the vicious circle of recriminations into which Sino-British relations over Hong Kong have drifted, and get it back to a more constructive and workmanlike basis.
Before this can begin, Mr. Patten has to resolve the problem created by the British Government's promise to raise with the Chinese Government the possibility of faster progress towards a fully elected legislature than is presently envisaged by the Chinese Basic Law. Well meant though it was, I am bound to say that I always thought this promise was unwise. And I speak as one who lobbied here in 1989 for more directly elected seats than we have been allowed.
The virtue of having the future constitution passed by the National People's Congress in China more than two years ago was certainty, but talk of change revives uncertainty, tension and discord in our community. Discussions on this issue will use up time and goodwill. Both are in short supply. Meanwhile, the community is divided and distracted from other important tasks, and the expectations of many in Hong Kong are unfairly raised.
Since a promise has been made, the British Government must fulfil it—and quickly—and report back frankly. We can then get back to work to our agenda. Hong Kong people can cope with disappointments: it is uncertainty that causes problems.
As we move into the closing stages of British administration and towards unprecedented constitutional changes, the people of Hong Kong must be encouraged by both governments to find strength through unity and to focus clearly on the reality of their future. The current preoccupation with the one single issue of a few more directly elected seats in 1995 obscures the fact that structures have no real life of their own and that democracy is a means to an end. It is the people who participate and hold the levers of power that matter.
What Hong Kong needs are local leaders of vision and commitment who will serve the community through and beyond 1997. But such people need some inducement to aspire to serve after 1997, if they are to take the risks and make the sacrifices which public
196
service demands. Those coming to prominence under the system now in place need to be reassured by China that they will not, for that reason, be regarded with suspicion after 1997. Those who have already established good relationships with China's leaders must not be frozen out by Britain on that account. It is a joint responsibility of the British and Chinese Governments to create together the conditions that will encourage the future leaders to emerge and to make a reality of the high degree of autonomy that has been promised to us.
All of that can only be done if there is mutual trust. Without trust, every suggestion by China will be interpreted as unwarranted interference in Britain's administration. Without trust, every initiative by the British side will be interpreted as a devious plot to maintain hidden control over Hong Kong after 1997. The British and Chinese Governments must lay those ghosts to rest, and get down to the practical tasks that are essential if this unique political experiment is to succeed.
Hong Kong people and businessmen day by day show how to build a mutually beneficial relationship with China. They have done so despite bad memories of a China from which many of them fled. They have done so despite the fact that China's leaders still proclaim an ideology that has been discredited virtually everywhere else. They have done so despite their political inexperience and impotence. They have done so despite the shock in Hong Kong of the tragic events in Tiananmen Square only three years ago.
Britain's objectives in Hong Kong may understandably be limited to an honourable and successful withdrawal in 1997. But that does not mean that Britain's interest should be so short sighted. On the contrary, it is only by having a clear vision of the needs of Hong Kong after 1997 that the remaining years of transition can be successfully completed. That vision can only materialise with the co-operation of the Chinese Government. And let me stress, co-operation need not inhibit frank exchanges or undermine Britain's effective administration of Hong Kong up to 1997 as enjoined by the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
I am sure that Her Majesty's Government can learn much about dealing with China from the outstandingly successful example of the Hong Kong people themselves. The fruits of that experience will be freely available to Mr. Patten when he arrives. The people of Hong Kong look forward to welcoming him and to working with him as we go forward together to make history.
3.44 p.m.
The Marquess of Huntly: My Lords, I must first advise the House, and especially my noble friend Lord Geddes, that I have not been rummaging in his briefcase to read his notes. I make that point because much of what I have to say may sound familiar on account of his having spoken earlier this afternoon. I was fortunate enough to be invited to visit Zhu Hai Special Economic Zone by its Mayor in November of last year. It was a brief visit, but I was shown something of the extent of the developments currently

197
being undertaken in the area. For mile after mile—and I only saw a relatively small corner —factories are being erected, together with blocks of flats, to service a development zone which will supply goods of every description through the new deep-sea port at present under excavation and the new airport proposed to serve the zone.
I should just say here that as one drives through the economic zone there are bulldozers flattening and clearing countryside where very soon there will be factories appearing as if from nowhere. Moreover, in no time at all they will be operational. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, the speed at which such developments are taking place is astonishing to see. As noble Lords will know, that is part of the Guangdong Province. Zhu Hai itself is only one of three special economic zones, Shenzhen and Shantou being the others.
Internal visa posts monitor the passage of huge volumes of workers in and out of the zones, where working permits bring prosperity to those fortunate enough to be in employment. The prosperity of Guangdong Province has, understandably, brought about an imbalance in prosperity which in itself is seen as distasteful by some Northerners on account of the impact on consumerism that was bound to materialise. The driving force behind that growth has been foreign investment in manufacturing, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Geddes said, from Hong Kong, where it is estimated that in excess of $15 billion has been invested in the area widely referred to as the Pearl River Delta.
When I was in Hong Kong in April of this year the Hang Seng index was booming on the revelation that Mr. Deng Xiaoping, China's 87 year-old paramount leader, had visited Guangdong and pronounced his support for continuing economic reforms. I understand that one should not underestimate the importance of such an occurrence in the perceptions of both Chinese and Hong Kong businessmen. Confidence soared as a result and property prices in Hong Kong have never been more buoyant. Currently, 40 per cent. of inward-investment in property in Hong Kong is coming from Chinese businessmen from the Guangdong Province.
Perhaps we should consider the attitude of central government in China to this phenomenon, as surely there is a contradiction between the ideals of a communist state with the effective practice of capitalism. In the region of 45 per cent. of Guangdong's production is believed to be private sector. Before the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in the 1970s, there were only state-owned industries, which were overmanned and under-productive. So how can those economic practices live harmoniously with the political ideology?
The question is constantly asked whether China will follow the Soviet Union into political turmoil. Members of the Chinese Communist Party have long been critics of the Soviets and foresaw the downfall of their system. While the Russians were placing chief emphasis on political reform, the Chinese, under Deng Xiaoping, were stressing the primary importance of
198
economic reform. China adopted the position of pragmatic but systematic reformer at a time when the Soviet leadership was still trying to find ways of making their administratively-dominated economy more efficient. Finally, after Tiananmen Square in 1989 China turned its back on political reform while, in contrast, the Soviet Union concentrated increasingly on political rather than economic reform.
I believe that we should be aware of the extent that government in China is centralised and the risks of intervention in the affairs of the prosperous regions if we are to evaluate the likelihood of intervention in the affairs of Hong Kong. China has always been less centralised than the USSR. Despite this there have been centuries of disputes between Beijing and the provinces over the appropriate degree of central control. It has been accepted nevertheless that a significant degree of provincial autonomy is desirable. There seems to be a long-term cycle of decentralisation and this has hastened economic development in China. What Mr. Deng Xiaoping said in Shanghai this April was that other provinces should follow the lead of Guangdong and accelerate economic reforms.
The Chinese economy has been performing very impressively in the 1980s and there is a growing satisfaction with standards of living. From a material point of view people live better lives than ever before. In Guangdong Province this prosperity is likely to accelerate through the 1990s bringing about a sharper distinction between those living in the north and those in the south.
At this time there is no sign of the central government tolerating any movement for democratisation as evidenced in Tiananmen Square. Indeed, this incident illustrated that the leadership was prepared to fight to stay in power at almost any cost. The chaos in the former Soviet Union serves to warn the Chinese leadership against radical reforms.
I have concentrated on the issue of stability in China at this time and the aspirations, as I understand them to be, of those who will be taking the decisions that will so decisively affect Hong Kong, and I feel that we should be encouraged by what we can acknowledge as reforms within China itself. We can be heartened by the relative absence of centralised policy-making where it might interfere with economic growth. I cannot come to terms with the tacit endorsement of capitalism under strong communist leadership but I believe that the confidence in a settled future that is gaining in Hong Kong is justified.
I am conscious that there may be many of your Lordships in this House whose experience of trading both in Hong Kong and South China will be far-reaching. My experience is limited to a short period of years. Nevertheless I am fortunate to be associated with businesses based in Hong Kong with manufacturing capacity in Guangdong and with businesses importing into and exporting out of China. These are of a size whereby any serious threat to the current stability between Hong Kong and China would almost certainly be catastrophic; on the other hand, these are typical of the businesses which show promise of being the future backbone of the industrial and commercial composition of the region.

199
I only mention my own minor involvement with the region as it is through this, understandably, that I formulate my vision of the economic and political circumstances currently prevailing. I have not touched on the two paramount issues which I know your Lordships will debate with authority, as has already been mentioned today; namely, the construction of the airport and the continuing democratisation of Hong Kong.
I have read in a recent article an image of the reform process in China. It is likened to groping for stepping stones while crossing a river. However fast the current may be and however deep the water, at least when crossing a river it is normally clear where the other bank is. For the reformers in China now the problem of maintaining the direction of the reforms is much more complicated. After the turmoil of 1989 and the failure of every other ruling communist party to devise a successful reform strategy from which the Chinese could learn, the problem is as much one of direction as of finding the stepping stones.
The solution will require wisdom, flexibility, boldness and determination. The success of this "crossing" will affect so many millions of people that I am sure that this House could only wish the leaders every success in continuing the initiatives that they have so wisely begun.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, one of the difficulties of a debate on this particular subject is that most of us who participate are, I suspect, devoted and dedicated readers of the Far East Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal. On this occasion I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, made life even more difficult for those who have to follow him. He raised a number of highly controversial issues which many of us were pleased to hear coming from him but which will by no means be universally popular in Hong Kong. But he did so with the clarity and force that we would expect and with an authority that few, if any, of us can match.
However, we owe him a special debt for introducing the debate in these terms and at this particular time. Not only are we about to have a new Governor with a very different background and style from his predecessors but the change is arriving at the perfect time for the exercise of the considerable skills and political contacts which he has. For the next five years it is a matter for skilled politics and negotiation. It is also a great relief. He is a first-rate appointment and a welcome relief from some of the other suggestions, regardless of their undoubted abilities in other fields.
The political climate for doing business in China has also taken a major turn for the better in the willingness—particularly since Deng's visit to Guangdong at the beginning of this year—of the authorities, particularly in the south, to demonstrate open and practical enthusiasm for the introduction of market forces.
I think at this point I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of a quoted company registered and operating out of Hong Kong, particularly since its
200
sole purpose is to invest in the People's Republic of China. We do that by investing in the shares of foreign companies and it is interesting that they are as to 75 per cent. Hong Kong companies. We also invest directly in ventures located in the People's Republic.
We are now moving into a new and fascinating area —the officially recognised stock markets of China. The past 18 months have seen the opening of stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzen and at least two more are expected. Let me say at once that I do not suggest that these institutions constitute the ideal vehicle for pension funds or the savings of widows and orphans. Nonetheless, no one interested in China and the events in the Chinese economy which involve Hong Kong can afford to ignore them or to ignore the implications of their establishment because they are yet another example of the speed and the extent of change in the management of the economy.
There are many other areas which demonstrate this most extraordinary series of changes in the approach of the Chinese authorities. There is the move to market pricing, particularly in Guangdong. The extent and the areas of the deregulation of pricing in terms of rice and other products would cause problems in this country and in the PRC would have been regarded at best as a very sick joke.
To take one example, there are the power stations. Not only are the power stations in this stronghold of communism totally unionised, not only have they been allowed to import unsubsidised foreign coal, but electricity prices are 50 per cent. higher than in other parts of the country to help them pay for it. I think that even the Union of Democratic Mineworkers would have a bit of a problem with that. Indeed, I would see a great problem in raising the whole subject in this House, with the embarrassment it might cause some of my former colleagues.
But perhaps even more significant is that all price restrictions on grain have been lifted both in Guangdong and Hainan, a proposition which would not be universally popular in the capitalist West and certainly probably not within the Common Market.
Of course there remain some serious problems. They are the result of an unprecedented attempt to introduce alien economic concepts into a country which has neither experience of them nor any.natural sympathy with them. Some of those problems become increasingly urgent as the process of change develops. There is a total lack of company law. There is the need for the development of effective reporting and accounting techniques. One of the problems which worries many people, certainly in Hong Kong, is the difficulty which the People's Republic of China seems to be having in establishing a legal framework.
To do business in China one is working in an entrepreneurial society, but one with no controls, little regulation, no accounting standards and annual reports and accounts which are almost as fictitious as some of those of the late Mr. Maxwell. It is becoming increasingly difficult for businessmen to live with those problems. Fortunately Hong Kong is already playing a large role in the industrial and commercial life of South China. As one of the world's most sophisticated financial centres—traditionally people have seen

201
London, New York and Tokyo as the three big international centres—it is possible that Hong Kong, even absorbed within China, could take the place of Tokyo as a genuine international financial centre. It also has the obvious ability to make a major contribution to the solution of some of the problems with which the authorities in China are now faced.
While one can understand the fears of people living in Hong Kong, and one can be suspicious of the intentions of some sections of the Chinese leadership, Hong Kong is not just a treasure chest to plunder. If the process of transition goes well, Hong Kong can continue to make a major and unique contribution to the economic progress of the PRC.
It is difficult to exaggerate the importance—not just to Hong Kong and the PRC but to the whole region —of ensuring that the positive benefits of transition from British colonial rule are fully exploited. Of course at the end of the day only the PRC can ensure that that happens; but Hong Kong—I repeat—already has a major presence there. Its importance is apparent, not merely to outsiders but to many younger PRC apparatchiks who have been educated abroad, who understand the system and who are highly sophisticated. In any case, there are some 24,000 Hong Kong companies already operating within the PRC. The Hong Kong dollar circulates freely in much of South China. There are also the close family ties, not to mention its dominant position as an export market.
There is an opportunity for Hong Kong to continue to make a major contribution to the development of China and the region after 1997. The people of Hong Kong have a real and justified anxiety about the future, which is of course uncertain. That is not helped by media comment on both sides of the Atlantic, which is almost perverse in its refusal to face the realities of that complex situation.
It is sometimes forgotten that the Chinese also have their worries. I was interested to hear the comments about the airport by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. I am bound to say that, having lived through the Channel Tunnel and sundry other large projects, if one were to have a government who sat back totally unconcerned with a project which they would inherit in five years' time, costing about £100 billion, one would think that they were unusually backward. They have anxieties, and some of them are legitimate. Some of them are illogical, but they stem from what has been a closed society for many years.
Most of the Chinese leadership, especially in Southern China, has already achieved the ultimate political paradox: the injection of capitalist institutions and practice into a political system which is unshakeable in its commitment to what it sees as the basic principles of socialism. It is an interesting paradox. Some of the arguments are fascinating. They are consciously seeking to accelerate the introduction of market forces while at the same time leaving no doubt whatsoever that it does not at this stage intend to change the party's control of the nation.
That causes obvious worries in many people's minds because it is largely unexplored territory which
202
the people of Hong Kong are entering, as indeed it is for the world, because the implications could be considerable; but it could turn out to he the beginning of a surprising success story. It would be the ultimate tragedy if those elements of success were frustrated by the fighting of bygone battles and a refusal to recognise the realities of the situation.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, a week ago I was a guest of the Hong Kong Association at its celebration of the 9th Dragon Boat Dinner when I had the pleasure of listening to an excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, during which she remarked that she appreciated coming to the House of Lords because it made her feel so young. I think that we can take that as a compliment. I should like to return the compliment this afternoon by saying how much her presence here rejuvenates us all and how her speech today was proof—if any proof is needed—of how lucky are the people of Hong Kong to have her on their side.
I happen to believe that they are also lucky to have Martin Lee on their side. He is the founder and leader of the United Democratic Party. At great cost to himself, Martin Lee has determined that Hong Kong shall enjoy in the future those values and privileges which we sometimes seem to take for granted here: representative government, an impartial judiciary, and an effective court of final appeal. He has no British passport in his back pocket, no convenient foreign bolt-hole. His endeavours on Hong Kong's behalf mean that he is on the Chinese Government's black list. He was removed summarily from the Basic Law Drafting Committee, and they have made it plain that his face does not fit, and that whatever their plans are for the future of Hong Kong, he will not be part of them. He is a brave man, and he deserves our support.
I am fully aware—and some of the remarks we have heard this afternoon bear this out—that a number of perfectly respectable people in Hong Kong do not necessarily welcome moves towards more representative government. This is best expressed perhaps in the feeling that the business of Hong Kong is business and that the boat must not be rocked in the interests of stability and the future prosperity of the territory and its people. I argue that the right conditions for financial success are precisely those of open government, open administration and an effective judiciary. All those will he best served by a truly representative government.
Martin Lee and his party's elected representatives should not and cannot he brushed under a convenient carpet by China or anyone else. The 1991 election—whatever its shortcomings, some of which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, mentioned earlier—showed beyond doubt that the United Democrats were the only party that then commanded popular support.
If the voters of Hong Kong are to be represented and the elected members of the UDM are to be more than a powerless opposition, one of Mr. Patten's first tasks as governor should surely be to consider bringing some of those members on to the Executive

203
Council rather than leaving them on the margin. That would be sensible not only for Hong Kong, but for its relationship with Southern China and Guangdong in particular.
As noble Lords heard from my noble friend Lord Geddes this afternoon, the success of Hong Kong's exported capitalism into the special economic zones has been tremendous, as has its effect on people's lives there. This what we may call "galloping" capitalism is probably irreversible. China's leaders have recognised that a dirigiste centrally controlled economy does not work. What they have yet to recognise is that communism itself does not work.
In Southern China they use what has been called "the book of capitalism with socialist covers". They are attempting to shore up communism with the props of capitalism. But how long can this last? The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked about this. How long will it be before the capitalists of Southern China start making awkward noises about company law and accounting regulations to protect their businesses; about property law and effective policing to protect their houses? How long will it be before they require a say in how their taxes are spent? Will they put regional or national interests first? The new prosperity and the prospect of freedom that it brings will surely change the political face of China.
This may not happen soon, but happen it certainly will. In the meantime, Hong Kong which has so convincingly demonstrated its entrepreneurial ability to China, has an opportunity also to demonstrate that open and representative government is the most effective guarantee of the stability which business needs in order to succeed. If, as is possible, boom turns to bust—which is always on the cards, particularly for an export-led economy such as China's which has not enough land to feed its own people—this bust will inevitably affect Hong Kong. It is crucial that democratic institutions are in place to deal with the consequent strains in the territory.
There is a tag that goes, "Always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse". For Hong Kong, Nurse will be pensioned off in 1997. As for fear, President Roosevelt said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Hong Kong is a great success story. It is brimming with skills of every kind. How lucky it is to have the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and Martin Lee, as well as a number of resourceful and energetic businessmen and entrepreneurs. The new governor has been dealt a tricky hand, but he is fortunate in having great talents at his side to help him. I wish him every success.
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to stay through the debate but I have a long-standing engagement in the country and have found no way of avoiding it. When I heard many speakers today such as the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose, Lord Geddes and the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, I wondered whether it was necessary for me to speak. However, I decided to do so briefly.
First, what are my qualifications? They go back a long way. Sixty years ago I went out to China with
204
Jean Monnet, the Father of Europe. We had been asked by the Chinese Government to try to advise them on economic development. In those days it was the Soongs and the Kungs who were in charge. We were specifically asked to make concrete recommendations for China in the long ago and difficult days when she was threatened on one side by the Japanese and her economy generally was in a mess. I shall not go into detail on what we achieved, but it is significant that we set up a development corporation with private Chinese banks and the Bank of China, so that the corporation could stand and match western capital in the development of the Chinese infrastructure. It might have been much more successful, but for the pressures from Japan, as many noble Lords will know. All the same, railways and other forms of communication, utilities and so on, were established.
I returned in 1937 for a year, again to try to help the Chinese Government with the development corporation. Then in the late 1950s I was Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, and Hong Kong came within my orbit. I am now 85 and, as noble Lords know, that age is of great importance to the Chinese.
What did I learn in those days long ago? Above all, I learnt admiration and respect for the Chinese. They are talented, hardworking and, I would say, cleverer than the West. If proof is needed, let us look at the economic influence of Hong Kong and its people, at Taiwan and the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Chinese overseas; and what they have helped to create for the economies of the western world.
I learnt about a people whose civilisation goes back thousands of years. They have had a centralised system of government for almost all that time, despite the great handicaps in those days of distance and lack of communications. They welded themselves into a nation. What an unequalled achievement—a quarter of the world's population becoming one nation! In the West we are children in comparison, yet we are often apt to judge China by our standards, our system of democracy which is epitomised today in the slogan, "One man, one vote". The mind boggles at the idea of one man, one vote for over a billion voters. Are we so sure that we know best? Our system of democracy goes back to Greece and its oligarchy or Rome and its empire. But are we certain that that form of developed democracy is right for China, or even for Hong Kong? I am apt to wonder about that.
The western world judges countries in terms of material and economic progress. Some noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, refer to that matter today. A little while ago on another occasion the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, also referred to that matter in his maiden speech. Those noble Lords said how standards have risen enormously in China over the past 15 to 20 years. Not only has the economy grown steadily in a way which we in the West should all envy, but also, over a relatively short period of time, the people of China have come to be treated as individuals. They are no longer considered expendable. Is that a triumph for communism? Chinese communism has characteristics all of its own. Chinese communism split from Russian communism about 20

205
years ago and China has gone its own way ever since. That is typical of China. China has its own system —call it what you will—which generally benefits the Chinese people.
Some may say, "What about Tiananmen Square"? That is an horrific story. Sometimes I am haunted by the thought that a good deal of the blame for that incident lay with the western media who encouraged and indeed incited the students to do something which in the event turned out to be tragic and unwise; namely, to challenge the Chinese Government.
Finally, I turn to Hong Kong. In five years Hong Kong will again become a part of China. I say "again become" because 99 years ago we forced a lease of most of the territories which now make up Hong Kong. The two governments have already negotiated a Joint Declaration. In my judgment that is a great start and augurs well for the future. The main task for Mr. Patten—his record gives one every encouragement in the future—is to ensure that the people of China, its officials and government get to know him and respect him. It will not be easy to interpret the Joint Declaration because one is trying to bring back a parent and the child who politically have developed so differently.
However, we must not think in terms of winner and loser but rather of the common ground and purpose which is to achieve something for the benefit not only of the people of Hong Kong but of all China. South China is mentioned in today's Motion. If I may be presumptuous enough to give advice it would generally be for Mr. Patten to make haste slowly and to get to know those members of the Chinese Government and their officials on the basis of friendship, mutual respect and trust. It is no good starting off by trying to hammer away at certain things which the Chinese will not want to have hammered away. If the Chinese like someone and realise that person is trying to help not only the people of Hone Kong but also of China they will listen to him.
Many noble Lords may recall a great friend of mine who, alas, is dead, Sir John Keswick. I mention his name because he was the epitome of one who loved —that is not too strong a word—China and who was immensely respected by the Chinese. They laughed together and he could say things that were difficult for others to say. The Chinese Government and its officials listened to him. They knew that what he was suggesting was to their benefit in the long run. He was their friend and they knew it. I hope Mr. Patten may take that as an example of what is possible on the personal basis of working with the Chinese.
I have deliberately not touched on specific issues that are arising now—for example, the new airport. Newspapers report that the Chinese are interfering in that project. I would only say that I, too, would interfere in a matter of such vast importance for the whole of southern China. There is the matter of the degree of representation that the people of Hong Kong will have. In the end that matter will be solved if both parties recognise that they have a common purpose and that they want to get a right answer. They need a consensus. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord
206
MacLehose, referred to that. The future of Hong Kong and South China poses a great challenge but I believe that the omens are good. Indeed, if I were younger I might ask Mr. Patten if he would allow me to join him in Hong Kong as a personal assistant just as I did with Mr. Monnet 60 years ago. The Chinese are a great people and so are we. Our record together offers great hope for Hong Kong's future.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to ask him whether I am right in thinking that I heard him say that he thought the West was to some extent to blame for the incident at Tiananmen Square in that they encouraged the students to challenge their government. Does the noble Earl also agree that the West were to blame for encouraging President Havel to challenge the Czech Government, or for encouraging Mr. Sakharov to challenge the Russian Government in his day? Does the noble Earl think that it is wrong for people to challenge their governments?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I believe that I have been misunderstood. The point that I was trying to make is that to encourage people to demonstrate and to agitate against a government when that task is really hopeless is not necessarily the wisest way to make progress.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I start by echoing the gratitude which has been expressed by other noble Lords today to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for having initiated this debate. I add my personal thanks to the noble Lord for having included me, together with my noble friend Lord Geddes in a remarkable visit to Hong Kong just before the election. Remarkable because although I have been lucky enough to visit Hong Kong often, I do not think that I have ever followed a programme which enabled me in so short a time to see so many people and to hear so many different views—views which were often conflicting but always stimulating and interesting.
Hong Kong is a difficult place to imagine before one visits it. I am sure that most noble Lords who are here today know Hong Kong quite well. During the next five years it is important that as many parliamentarians as possible obtain first-hand experience of Hong Kong. Given that the Hong Kong Government organise such effective visits, I express the hope that they will, if anything, increase the number of MPs who visit the colony. I hope that they will focus particularly on the large number of new MPs so that those MPs will be able to speak from direct experience of Hong Kong. I should like to add my thanks and tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for all that he has done for Britain as well as for Hong Kong during his period as Governor. The governorship of Hong Kong is one of the great offices under the Crown and the noble Lord has filled it with great distinction. We look forward greatly to him joining us here.
The governorship of Hong Kong is a post which is well worthy of Mr. Patten and I believe that Mr. Patten is well worthy of the post. Chris Patten and I

207
cut our political teeth together nearly a quarter of a century ago in the Conservative Research Department. He is a politician of subtlety, humanity and perhaps above all—and this may not be obvious —of great personal toughness. I doubt very much whether his five years in Hong Kong will be the end of his political career. I have observed that Hong Kong adds to the stature of anyone who spends any length of time there, whether in a government or business role. At the moment I cannot think of anyone who would be better suited to being Foreign Secretary of this country in five years' time.
When one visits Hong Kong and notes the tremendous boom which is taking place one naturally wonders whether it is a bubble which is about to burst. The Hang Seng index is presently at a level of about 5800, within 5 per cent. of its all-time high and nearly 50 per cent. higher than it was before Black Monday of October 1987. The Tokyo market is at a level of 16,400—well below half its all-time high. One asks how real is that astonishing prosperity of Hong Kong. I spent some time trying to find out whether something awful was about to happen and whether a crash was coming. I did not feel that that was the case. I felt that the boom was rooted in real prosperity.
I believe that there are several reasons. Hong Kong has a remarkably high standard of infrastructure in every respect: the standard of communications and of financial services; the MTR (which provides a sad reminder of what every journey on London Underground could be) and the prospect of a new airport. The downtown area of the Central district compares favourably with the finest downtown areas of the great American cities. I only wish that in this country we had architecture as good as that in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's economy is well and truly based on rock. It is a remarkable economy in the sense that only 630,000 people, some 22 per cent. of the total of 2.8 million employed, are employed in manufacturing. Some 650,000 people are employed in trading and retailing, nearly 300,000 in finance and nearly 250,000 in restaurants and hotels. Unemployment is very low by Beveridge standards, being significantly under 2.5 per cent.
The crucial reason why Hong Kong is doing so well economically is that it has discovered something of an El Dorado; namely, a labour force in China which is almost unlimited in size and exceedingly low in cost. Wages in China are between one-sixth and one-eighth of those in Hong Kong. As I shall mention shortly, that has certain dangers. However, it has helped Hong Kong in a number of ways. First, it acts as a form of multiplier for the economy of Hong Kong. Secondly, it has disguised the rather high rate of inflation in Hong Kong. Hong Kong still has double digit inflation. Real wages in most sectors, other than the financial sector which are falling, according to the latest quarterly economic report are rising. However, there is a danger in that local inflation; but for the present it has effectively been disguised by the employment by Hong Kong manufacturers of some 3 million people inside China.
In many ways 1997 has already arrived. To a large
208
extent Hong Kong is already the financial centre of southern China. Some 30 per cent. of all the banknotes issued by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank are currently circulating in southern China. We have heard from a number of noble Lords of the large number of economically productive enterprises in China which are owned by Hong Kong companies.
There is a danger in relation to workers in China employed by Hong Kong companies. Wages are very low. It is difficult to obtain figures, and I stand correction from the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn—who we are delighted to see here today and we wish she were here more often—if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the cost of labour in China to an employer in Hong Kong is approximately 700 Hong Kong dollars a month—which is about £50—of which the worker receives only about half. That is a very low rate of pay. However, given that those people probably would not otherwise be earning anything at all it is not an unreasonable rate of pay.
It is difficult to see what can be done about that, and I did not have the advantage of travelling inside southern China with my noble friend Lord Geddes when he accompanied the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. However, I was there not so long ago. I am worried about the conditions under which people are employed in China by Hong Kong employers. It is important that there is not, to use the old Marxist term, exploitation of those workers. I do not say that it is a matter of paying them more, but I believe that it is important that they should have decent working conditions. The hours for which they receive that remarkably low wage are long, usually eight hours a day, six days a week—a 48-hour week. That is not, of itself, exploitation but I wish to stress that point of working conditions.
I should like to say something about the current politics in Hong Kong. I am, of course, familiar with the arguments concerning LegCo and democratisation. When, for several years, I wrote articles on the subject for the Economist I was one of those who believed that it was necessary to have an elected legislature to take over from Westminster as the guardian of good behaviour by the Hong Kong Government after 1997. As we all know, Hong Kong has had good and enlightened government, but behind the Hong Kong Government has been Whitehall. Now Peking will take over froth Whitehall. Behind Whitehall there has always been Westminster to ensure that there was no misbehaviour by the Hong Kong Government. Britain's record during ' the 150 years it has run and ruled Hong Kong is one of which we can be extremely proud.
I was very much in favour of a greater degree of elected membership of the legislature for that reason. That has not come about. Reluctantly I recognise that it is now unlikely to do so. Therefore, I agree with other noble Lords that it is probably futile to appeal to China to allow more than the small number of 20 seats out of the total of 60 to b directly elected by 1995. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that it is desirable for that issue t be resolved as soon as possible. There is a commitment. The British Government should consult wit and appeal to the

209
Government of China. However, even if that is unlikely to have any effect we must get that issue out of the way.
Perhaps I may say this to my friends among the United Democrats led by Mr. Martin Lee, whose courage and integrity I salute. I seriously wonder whether it is in the interests of Hong Kong for those who have been elected to the legislature of Hong Kong —a legislature that will have a crucial role in preventing interference with Hong Kong's internal politics by China after 1997—to advocate political change inside China. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke interestingly on the assumptions that we make about democracy. Certainly democracy cannot exist without capitalism. Whether capitalism can exist without democracy is more open to question.
However, I believe that we should judge China less by the system of democracy that may be introduced and more by standards of human behaviour. One of the factors that I find encouraging about Tiananmen is the extraordinary extent to which the Chinese Government appear to regret, one might even say to be ashamed of, what occurred. I do not believe that what occurred in Tiananmen was malevolent by intention. It was unfortunate; it was tragic. People lost their lives in circumstances in which they should not have done. But it is remarkable how China has tried to turn back from that behaviour. I hope that we will now judge China by its behaviour rather than its political system.
Under the 1984 Joint Declaration we have an undertaking for 50 years of capitalism for Hong Kong. If the world continues to change at the rate it has changed in recent years, I believe that well within that period China will have a capitalist system.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks with those of so many noble Lords to my noble friend Lord MacLehose for initiating the debate with, as we could well expect, a speech so full of wisdom.
There is no shortage of problems at home and on our doorstep which regularly engage your Lordships' concern and lead to debate. With daily pressing preoccupations it is not surprising that we tend to be rather less mindful of what is happening a long way away. That is all the more reason to be grateful to my noble friend for having reminded us, with the authority that he possesses, of developments in China and Hong Kong. What happens there may in the long term have an even more fateful influence on our destinies than events nearer home, for in that largest country nearly 1.25 billion people are vigorously refashioning their economy and social system.
By coincidence it is particularly appropriate that we should turn our attention in London this week to matters Chinese. At present, London is the host to State Councillor Mr. Li Guixian, Governor of the People's Bank of China. With a number of his most senior officials he is in London to set up the first branch of the People's Bank outside China. That may be a useful pointer to our friends on the Continent as
210
and when—perhaps I should say nowadays and if—the question of the location of the future European central bank comes on the agenda. The Bank of China, which celebrates this year its 80th anniversary as the premier foreign exchange bank in China, has been in London for 53 years. This week its president, Mr. Wang Deyan, is opening its handsome new offices in the City. It is another occasion to remember our close connections with the People's Republic.
The debate refers in particular to Hong Kong and South China. Given recent developments in the southern parts of China and the now not far off completion of the change in the status of Hong Kong, that is appropriate. However, I wish to say a few words in general about developments in China. I am not what used to be called "an old China hand". I have visited Hong Kong frequently for the past 40 years but my first visit to the People's Republic was in 1977 when I had the honour of leading a group of 20 chairmen and chief executives of leading British companies to China. I did so again the following year. I believe that many noble Lords will agree—as demonstrated by some of the speeches that we have heard already today—that the developments in China in the past 15 years have been absolutely staggering. They continue now at an even faster pace. China today boasts an economic growth rate of which many so-called developed countries in the industrialised West might well be proud. Inflation has not been totally removed by any means, but it has been brought considerably under control. The external financial situation of China is extremely strong with reserves in the Central Bank of probably about 50 billion dollars and which rise steadily week by week.
The recent developments in the financial sphere to which I have given some attention recently are particularly striking. I wish to mention the accelerating issue of shares in enterprises, to which reference has been made today, and the growth of securities trading in particular in the special economic zone of Shenzhen and in Shanghai. The savings rate in China is by any standards extremely high. It is probably about 28 per cent. of GNP. There is a sharply-growing demand for shares to absorb the people's savings. Indicative of that development, and perhaps symbolic in a wider sense, was the queue stretching around a whole city block which I saw in Shanghai a few weeks ago. The queue was not for food or other necessities of life, as might once have been the case, but to a stockbroking office.
The People's Bank of China has taken a special interest in that development. I understand that the number of shares, including the so-called -B" shares which have all the necessary safeguards regarding payment of dividends in foreign currency and repatriation of capital in foreign currency, and which can be dealt in only by non-residents, will grow rapidly in the months to come.
Those financial developments are particularly important. They not only reflect the progress of the real underlying economy, but are themselves a condition for the further advance of the economy. They provide the basis for domestic capital formation and encourage investment from abroad.

211
South China, in particular Shanghai, Guangdong and the special economic zone, have been the main location of those astonishing economic and financial advances. My noble friend in his introductory speech emphasised them. Such advances have a special bearing on Hong Kong, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers already. Much of that economic interpenetration by inward and outward investment between the People's Republic and in particular between the southern part and Hong Kong, which I and many others have always regarded as a beneficent prelude to 1997, has occurred between Hong Kong and those neighbouring areas and will no doubt increase. More generally the progressive liberalisation of the economy of the People's Republic has always seemed to me to be one of the best—perhaps the best —single augury for a smooth transition of Hong Kong in 1997.
There are grounds for believing that the present trends in South China will gradually spread throughout the country and, moreover, that they are irreversible. That at any rate is what the Chinese leaders believe. It does not mean that there will not be ups and downs even if the general trend continues to be upwards. Transformations of such enormous magnitude in a country of China's size and history produce their own social and economic problems and are above all subject to delays in the psychological adjustments that are required. For example, I am sure that the health warning which now attaches to so many advertisements of fund managers that, "shares may go down as well as up" is a warning that the people of China will learn to heed. Those people, many in very important positions, with whom I had the privilege of talking during my visit to Beijing in December and to Shanghai a few weeks ago, are conscious of that aspect. They put their faith in being able to maintain the improvement in living standards which should accompany, and have already done so to a large extent, the structural changes in the economy.
They are also well aware of another fundamentally more important problem which now troubles the countries of the former Soviet Union, and that is how to achieve the delicate balance between the phasing of economic liberalisation and changes in the political and administrative spheres. The faster that the increased emphasis on the market mechanism produces those real improvements in the lives of the masses of the people, which it is supposed to achieve, as against the stresses of a harsher economic climate, the easier it will be to achieve that delicate balance. All that argues against the fashionable doctrine of "shock therapy". That term and concept is often much too light heartedly used by so-called experts from the West who are trying to help the difficult transformation of one-time command economies.
The leaders of China, though proud of what they are achieving, are very conscious of what they lack and what they have to learn. We in the West can in our narrow and wider self interest help with trade, investment and technical advice. Given the catalytic role which Hong Kong is playing, our country, if it follows the wise advice given by my noble friend, can help in particular to benefit China as well as ourselves.
212
It was Napoleon who first spoke of "when China awakes". I am convinced that China is awake. We can help to ensure that she uses her new-found strength not only to her own best advantage but to the benefit of the world as a whole.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, sometimes my friends from Hong Kong, or my lady wife, whose ancestors originate from Fujian Province in mainland China, tell me that if we have the interests of Hong Kong at heart, or have a declared commercial interest in the future of Hong Kong, we must keep our remarks in debates such as this to a minimum. I shall do my best, but having heard the speeches I believe that that is a wrong approach to today's debate.
I cast my mind back 100 years when the agent of the dowager Empress set fire to the warehouses of the companies in which I have a declared interest. That caused many people involved in commerce to leave mainland China and go to the barren rock of Hong Kong. With the seeds of free enterprise they transformed it into the thriving international trading community about which we have spoken today. I wonder whether that analogy can be continued.
I believe that the people of Hong Kong are to be considered as seeds in a seed pod ready to burst forth after 1997 onto mainland China in order to carry the seeds of free enterprise into the cities there. The Hong Kong people who will make the return journey of their ancestors will be able to bring their much-needed and much-admired work ethic and abilities in business management to revitalise the mainland economies. If in spite of the protection of the Basic Law there is a temptation to impose on post-1997 Hong Kong an outdated and elitist bureaucracy I am afraid that the spectres of old Shanghai and old Canton will remind the administration of what can happen to Hong Kong in the forthcoming decades. I do not believe that that will happen and I am optimistic about the business future.
However, there are complications. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, with her deep knowledge of the subject, raised the problem of where politics and business stop and start. Perhaps I may be allowed to make a generalisation, although there are noticeable exceptions. Active politicians make rather poor businessmen and by the same token rich businessmen make rather poor politicians. Although there are exceptions to that rule, it is important that in Hong Kong people follow two different careers—a form of caste system. Those who wish to indulge in politics, with the courage and great activity of someone such as Martin Lee, should do so as politicians and be kept separate from the business community. Those whose business it is to continue their trade and to do their best to adapt to the future of Hong Kong, whatever it may bring to the business world, should keep out of politics.
In that way I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I believe that the business community should try to steer clear of politics and should just get on with the business. There is a great deal to get on with, as

213
was said by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and others. That includes the expansion into mainland China and into South China.
I speak today as an individual and say that I foresee various problems. There are real dangers in the low wage structure of South China. Serious unemployment problems could be created in Hong Kong as the main businesses are moved onto the mainland because of the golden apple of low wages, low cost and high profits which may follow. We should bear in mind that Taiwan and Singapore have opted for high technology as their future. In Hong Kong the emphasis has been on the entrepreneurial middle man and local manufacturers for re-export. Businessmen must look carefully at the future of Hong Kong. Should it concentrate more on high technology in order to obtain investment from high technology industries in Japan, Europe and America or should it consider some other programme? I see that as being the major problem rather than politics. I hope that politics will not become a major part of Hong Kong life. That was never previously the case and that has been the success of Hong Kong.
In addition, I hope that people in companies and in government will begin to pass on to local Hong Kong residents the responsibility for their duties post-1997. I doubt whether the Government in Beijing will read Hansard after 1997. Our views, whatever they may be and whatever may be said in your Lordships' House, will not be read in China nor in Hong Kong. Therefore, it is up to the people of Hong Kong to carry on as best they can within the sphere of the Republic of China.
Responsibility both for business and government should be given as soon as possible to executives of one kind or another and they should begin to fulfil their duties as soon as possible. Certainly there will be a partnership of western businessmen and western technicians. However, we must remember that under the new administration there may be serious language and cultural problems of understanding how the new regime thinks and operates. Only Hong Kong residents who originated from China will be able to help and assist. They will have a real role to play in manoeuvring the money for investment towards the success of Hong Kong and towards the success of China itself. I hope that non-resident people will not try to hold on to their responsibilities right up until the last moment.
I wish the new governor every success in what is a delicate and difficult task. I have no doubt he will fulfil it with extreme skill and wisdom as he has done in the past in his other duties.
5 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join with your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for giving us an opportunity to debate Hong Kong at this particularly appropriate moment. I thank him for setting out so clearly what I might describe, in a purely neutral fashion, as the establishment's attitude to where we stand in that relationship.
214
I also join with other noble Lords in saying how, as always, I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. She speaks with unrivalled authority on Hong Kong and her words must always be taken seriously when she speaks about Hong Kong and its future.
I believe that I am right in saying that with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am the first of your Lordships to speak who is not a businessman with a direct interest in Hong Kong. In my view that interest has led the debate to be curiously unbalanced. We are talking about not only the economic future of Hong Kong but also its political future. It was not until the noble Lords, Lord Roll of Ipsden and Lord Tanlaw, spoke that the political implications of what is going on was stated to be one of the considerations of equal importance to the celebration of the glories of capitalism and the success of Hong Kong; unrivalled, we know, as a centre of free enterprise.
I noted also that there is a desire, which I wholly understand but do not altogether applaud, to try to forget the more unpleasant aspects of the past. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for allowing me to intervene in his speech on that point. However, I noted also that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that he thought that the action in Tiananmen Square was not malevolent. That seems to me to be an extraordinary description of that incident. It was not done in a fit of absence of mind or for any other reason. I should have thought that "malevolent" is the mildest adjective which could be used to describe that major tragedy. Nor do I believe that, if you propose to judge China by its behaviour, it is possible to forget altogether its behaviour in Tibet today. Is that something which is also not malevolent and which the people of Hong Kong need not take into account when they consider their future after sovereignty passes from this country to China? If you lived in Hong Kong and your future was to be under the Chinese Government, those would be matters of legitimate, real and obvious anxiety. When discussing this matter in this House we should certainly address those issues.
Indeed, one reason that the whole matter of Hong Kong makes me, and I think others, uneasy is that we in this country are deciding the future of the inhabitants of Hong Kong and they will have to live with the consequences. That is an uneasy and uncomfortable position in which to be. Had the constitutional arrangements which exist in Hong Kong been different, the view of the inhabitants as to their future would have been of paramount importance. That would have decided the nature of our negotiations, the posture we adopted and what we hoped to achieve; but, as it is, the responsibility for their fate and for their future, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, lies with us. I find that an uncomfortable and uneasy position in which to be.
Unless substantial arguments are produced—and I must confess that I have not yet heard them—the case for the fullest possible consultation with the people of Hong Kong and the case for finding out their wishes by the most democratic means possible, and following

215
those wishes once they have been found out, is very difficult to contest or refute because they, and not we, will be living with those consequences.
That having been said, as has been indicated on a number of occasions in the course of our discussion today, there are, roughly speaking, two courses open to us. The first can be described as "fast forward", which is roughly speaking the course courageously advocated by Martin Lee. The other course, which has been advocated by almost every speaker this afternoon, is to proceed cautiously—and that is the view of the business community—to avoid any unnecessary confrontation with the Chinese Government. That view has been expressed overwhelmingly in the debate today.
I suppose it could be generally agreed, although the order in which things should be done may differ, that we all hope that at the end of the day, when sovereignty is transferred from this country to China, we shall have done all in our power to preserve the prosperity of Hong Kong and to secure the civil rights of its people. It seems to me that the latter has received far less than its due attention in this debate. Such is the difficult and delicate task which falls upon the new governor when he is installed.
As has been said on a number of occasions this afternoon, Hong Kong is a most brilliantly successful model of the market economy and its neighbour on the mainland, Guangdong, is marching in its footsteps and being swept along in its slipstream. Mr. Deng visited that province and said that it was on the right lines. Last year industrial growth increased by 27 per cent. That is an extraordinary achievement which we must all celebrate.
However, what has been happening in the former Soviet empire is not altogether irrelevant to this situation. We have discovered that ex-communist countries lack the institutional, economic and regulatory infrastructure which a market economy requires. Secondly, we have discovered that political reform is far more difficult than we had supposed or foresaw. That is a matter to which I shall return.
While we have given a great deal of advice to central and eastern European countries about privatisation, accounting, property laws and how to set up a banking system, we have given them far less advice on political reform, political structures and how to create civil institutions such as existed in Franco's Spain but did not exist and do not exist in those communist countries and, according to reports, do not exist in communist China.
If you transfer that experience with all the necessary qualifications which are large and considerable, we find that economic reform is taking place in China under an authoritarian government. In my view, that is the way in which economic market reform is generally successfully introduced. As I have said before in this House, it is very difficult to find a case where a democratic government have introduced market reforms successfully because their immediate impacts are unpleasant, as we have seen in central and eastern Europe.
Secondly, we find that some of the deficiencies in the legal and institutional structures which exist in
216
central and eastern Europe exist also in China. In all those respects, Hong Kong provides a model not only of a market economy but also of the legal and regulatory institutions which are required. According to true Hayekian theory, the establishment of market economies in China should lead inevitably to the establishment of democracy. Pray God that is true. Just as Hong Kong provided a model for economic development, so I hope—if the Hayekian theory is true—that it will provide a model for political development.
All I am arguing is that the case for further democracy in Hong Kong rests on the following grounds. First, on the Prime Minister's statement at the Commonwealth Conference in 1991 when he said,
"The bedrock of what we must do must he the general application of democracy and human rights. That means the rights of our citizens to choose freely who governs them".
I believe that that applies. Secondly, that statement was overwhelmingly endorsed in the Hong Kong election by the people who will suffer the consequences of any change in their status. As I said at the beginning, we should respect the views of those who must live with the consequences. Thirdly, if we hope the present regime manned by aged people and inspired by the past is the way to a more democratic society, then Hong Kong may and should be able to provide a political model just as it has provided an economic one.
The debate has been curiously optimistic in its prognostication of the future. The task of the new government will be far more difficult than has been adumbrated today. For example, there is evidence that the authority of the Hong Kong Government is already diminishing as people make plans for what they think will be the future. That must be recognised. I received a communication from a correspondent in Hong Kong regarding the law and order situation there, which has severely deteriorated in the past year. As a consequence, criminals armed with weapons imported from mainland China have been engaged in shoot-outs which have caused great anxiety. As a result of that, the Hong Kong Commissioner of Police visited China and has been in touch with the Public Security Bureau of China.
That is a perfectly sensible thing to do in any ordinary situation. But I understand that the Public Security Bureau of China has an official presence in Hong Kong. I have not given the noble Baroness notice of my question but I should like to know how large that presence is; how many people there are in the Public Security Bureau, and how long they will be there. It is readily understandable in the situation in which Hong Kong finds itself, and given the reputation of the Chinese Government, that the idea that Chinese Government police have a standing in Hong Kong could cause a great deal of anxiety.
I conclude by saying that it is all very well to talk about laying the ghosts of the past, to talk about mutual trust, to say that the Chinese go their own way and that we must understand it. I believe that they should understand that mutual trust is a mutual bargain; that so long as they behave as they behave in Tibet and so long as there is no apology for Tiananmen Square, so will people who are to come

217
under their rule be apprehensive. While we have a responsibility for those people we should exercise it with the greatest care and with some caution.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others who have spoken today I should like to start by putting firmly on record our appreciation and respect for the outgoing Governor, Lord Wilson. His has been a distinguished record of public service.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, provides us with an important opportunity to discuss both current events and future developments in Hong Kong and, indeed, China. We are privileged to have the benefit of his experience and insight.
The main issues arising from the impressive speeches in this debate with their wealth of direct experience—not least that of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn—seem to me to centre on Britain's handover of power in Hong Kong to China in 1997, with its attendant problems—not least citizenship, the resolution of the refugee crisis in Hong Kong about which we have heard little this afternoon and the future of relations between the United Kingdom and China.
With regard to citizenship I suggest that history will judge the present diplomatic practitioners severely. Scrutiny will centre on precisely what consular protection without the right of residency in the United Kingdom and without inheritance of that status by children really turns out to be. It will centre also on the fate of those non-Chinese residents in Hong Kong without a passport of any kind after 1997.
Since what I believe can only be described as the stark horror of Tiananmen Square in June 1989, the Chinese Government, regarding Hong Kong as a potential centre of subversion, adopted an increasingly hard line approach to the colony. Consequently, the Chinese have sought to exercise greater control in the running of Hong Kong both before and after the transfer of power. As was suggested by several speakers this afternoon, that was reflected in the Chinese opposition which delayed the new airport project which was only finally agreed in September 1991. The acceptance of the need for that agreement is itself obviously a concession to China and a symbolic extension of China's effective influence over the colony prior to 1997. I quite accept that some noble Lords have argued that that is legitimate, but it is a reality. With that in mind can the noble Baroness reassure the House this evening as regards the rumour that construction is even now being hampered by Chinese delaying tactics. Is it true? If so, what lies behind it? What is its long-term significance? Cannot the construction be accelerated? Are there plans for further discussions with the Chinese Government? If so, how soon?
Despite all the anxiety in regard to the long-term future, there were some good indications that business confidence may at least have partially recovered in the period following the original signing of the airport agreement. Economic ties between Hong Kong and China, as we have been reminded, are certainly at an
218
advanced level. China and Hong Kong are each other's largest trading partners and China accounts for more than 80 per cent. of the colony's re-export trade.
Equally, at least 2 million employees in the southern province of Guangdong alone carry out Hong Kong related work while an estimated 50,000 Hong Kong technical and managerial staff regularly work in China. It is to be hoped that that close economic relationship can translate relatively smoothly into closer political and administrative links.
Reference was made this afternoon to the appointment of the new Governor. Certainly the appointment of Christopher Patten has kept the spotlight on the colony. It is indeed expected to be a highly demanding post. He will have to negotiate both with the Chinese and with the increasingly independent pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and somehow attempt to reconcile their different demands. It will call for the application of the highest qualities of fairness, objectivity, balance and diplomacy coupled with firmness, of which I believe, like others, Christopher Patten is capable.
In warmly wishing the new Governor well it is perhaps legitimate simply to suggest that he will rapidly need to put his recent combative partisan style of the election period firmly behind him. It is good that Christopher Patten has the direct ear of the Prime Minister. He will rapidly have to demonstrate that his appointment is not just a political consolation prize.
Pressure has been building up in Hong Kong for much greater democracy to be introduced—a development which we on this side of the House support. We recognise that the United Kingdom Government is indeed in a difficult position. While accepting the justice of greater democracy they must endeavour to handle this in a way that does not unnecessarily provoke the Chinese Government. However, Douglas Hurd told the other place recently, during Foreign Office Questions, that that is one of the problems that the Government are actively considering. It will be helpful for us all if the noble Baroness could outline the steps that the Government are taking, or are considering taking, to ensure that democratisation continues after the transfer of power.
The Foreign Secretary also said that on his arrival the Governor will want to consult widely about running the colony, its future and relations with the Chinese. He told the other place that conclusions would not,
"emerge until the autumn at the earliest".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/92; col. 812.]
He stressed that the United Kingdom Government would have to discuss the 1995 Legislative Council elections with the Chinese Government. Can the noble Baroness today clarify when a meeting for that purpose is expected to take place and who is likely to be present? For example, will directly elected representatives be included? The new Governor no doubt will be organising early meetings with the administration and elected officials. We hope that he will also take an early opportunity to meet other representatives from the community groups and from the trades unions.

219
On 12th May of this year Great Britain and Vietnam signed an agreement under which those Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong who have not been given refugee status will be repatriated by force if necessary. Forty thousand people could be affected. In response to a recent oral Question the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that it would take about three years to resolve the crisis. That still raises grave anxiety when the status and treatment of the boat people is compared with that of similar people in parts of Europe, Central America and Africa.
There is an unease about how far any valid objective dividing line really exists between an economic refugee and a political refugee. That is partly why we still favour voluntary repatriation and are unable readily to endorse repatriation by force except in the case of double-backers —that is to say, those who have already been deported from Hong Kong but who return in order to collect the bounty for those going back to Vietnam voluntarily.
The human rights of the boat people must be protected. Therefore, it is essential to be convinced that the screening processes are invariably thorough and just. Can the noble Baroness tell us when these processes were last vigorously reviewed by the United Kingdom Government together with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? The May 1992 agreement envisages increased United Kingdom aid to Vietnam. Can the noble Baroness tell us more about that? Given that it is poverty in Vietnam which has accentuated the boat people crisis, any increase in aid is welcome. Unfortunately, its effectiveness will inevitably be undermined by the United States Government's continuing economic embargo against Vietnam. That still extends to vetoing IMF and World Bank funds scheduled for Vietnam. Relations between the United States and Vietnam have certainly thawed slightly, but can the noble Baroness assure us that the Government will urge the US Government to end their embargo? In our view it is essential to appreciate that it is the parlous economic situation in Vietnam and the part of the international community in prolonging it, which contributes to the boat people tragedy.
Last September the Prime Minister visited China and Hong Kong. At the end of his visit he and the Chinese Prime Minister reaffirmed their commitment to dialogue and co-operation. They expressed confidence that Hong Kong's position as an international finance centre could be preserved after 1997. They welcomed the provision in the Memorandum of Understanding about the airport for meetings of their Foreign Secretaries to take place every six months.
We are all realists. All that is extremely important. But can the noble Baroness give categoric assurances that the United Kingdom Government will continue to raise firmly with the Chinese Government the imperative of respecting human rights and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter has just suggested, the priority to end repression in Tibet? This debate has illustrated that on all sides of this House there is a deep commitment to the economic and social success of
220
China and Hong Kong. Therefore, we all wholeheartedly throw ourselves behind the task of ensuring a smooth and creative transition in 1997 which will prove to be in the long-term interests of both China and Hong Kong.
But our commitment is surely not to some abstract notion of a state, a stock market or an economy as ends in themselves. Our commitment is to people; millions upon millions of individual children, women and men. That commitment can only be fulfilled if the principles of justice and human rights as much as any economic concerns remain firmly on the agenda.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with the greatest interest to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch. As a distinguished former Governor of Hong Kong he understands the territory and its people well. I know that he has their interests at heart. I well remember his first briefing to me on the subject of Hong Kong when he was Governor and I made my very first visit to Hong Kong and China about 12 years ago.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much we have valued his contribution to the work of the Great Britain China Centre over which he has presided for the past six years. I also pay a special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, for her eloquent speech based so informatively on her experience and authority as a senior member of the Executive Council. I am so glad that the noble Baroness's wisdom is going to be made available to the new Governor. I well remember too her valuable advice some 12 years ago when we first met in Hong Kong. Perhaps I may also associate myself and the Government as a whole with the tributes which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and other noble Lords have paid to the present Governor, Lord Wilson, whom we look forward to welcoming in this House next month. He has done an excellent job. He has guided Hong Kong through some testing times. We are most grateful to him and also to Lady Wilson for all that she has done in his support.
I know that this House wants to join with me in wishing Mr. Patten well in his exceedingly demanding job as Governor from 3rd July. As a friend and close colleague, I know that he will bring to that task formidable talents and determination. He will dedicate himself to serving the interests of Hong Kong and all its people. Indeed I know that he also has great interest in China. It was he who signed the first Memorandum of Understanding between this country and China when he held my present post as Minister for Overseas Development.
The result of the general election ensures continuity in the British Government's policy towards Hong Kong. We are determined to fulfil our obligation to administer Hong Kong justly and efficiently until 1997, and to do everything possible to lay secure foundations for preserving Hong Kong's way of life and economic success beyond that date, as provided for in the Joint Declaration. The Government and the

221
new Governor will want to continue to work in co-operation with China in the best interests of Hong Kong.
Democracy has naturally been a frequent theme in this debate and has been mentioned by many of your Lordships. The direct elections to the Hong Kong Legislative Council last September were a substantial step along the democratic path. Her Majesty's Government have two objectives in this matter: to see steady progress towards a greater degree of direct election in Hong Kong, and also to see this progress sustained without interruption after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997.
As the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, has said, there will be many detailed questions to decide about the next LegCo elections in 1995. We shall want to discuss all these matters with China and, whenever possible, to reach agreement, in particular on those issues relevant to convergence with the Basic Law. I noted particularly what the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said about the numbers being democratically elected. I should like to refer your Lordships to what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place on 3rd June when answering a question from the right honourable Gentleman Mr. Timothy Renton. My right honourable friend said:
"On the specific point concerning the 1995 LegCo elections, we have said that we shall be discussing those elections with the Chinese side with the aim of ensuring as much continuity as possible. Decisions on electoral arrangements will need to take account of such discussions; they are, I think, some way of".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/92; col. 812.]
It will be good for us all to remember that there will not be any sudden changes, but there will be much debate and discussion.
As my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter said, we have rightly heard a great deal about business. I am sure that the example that is being set in South China by all those who have invested there and who have given their time and energy is one that many other countries would do well to copy. As so many of your Lordships have spoken today about the enormous dynamism of South China, especially in the Pearl River Delta Region, and about the growing links between Guangdong Province and Hong Kong, it is right for me to spend a few moments on this subject and to try to give the balance to the debate that was requested by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter.
Guangdong Province and the whole of South China has in recent years seen some of the fastest economic growth in the world. That process has continued despite the recession elsewhere. Guangdong Province has been transformed over the past decade, as so many of your Lordships have said. Alone it now accounts for 10 per cent. of China's industrial output, nearly one-fifth of China's exports and around half of the foreign investment in China. However, there are still numerous concerns.
I should like to thank all those among your Lordships who have brought your commercial experience to bear on the judgments that we must make about what is going on in the transformation of
222
China. However, I note with care—as do the Hong Kong Government—the anxiety about inflation that was expressed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I know that the Hong Kong Government are taking steps to tackle inflation and that they will continue to do so.
One of the main things that we must remember is that China's economic reform policies, which have provided the context for the changing performance in South China, can act as an example. China has needed to depend on investment and on the management skills from outside, especially from Hong Kong, which have provided so much of the motor of the new economic development.
Hong Kong will always be a particularly valuable partner for southern China because it has such special skills. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said, it has a well-educated workforce with a high level of English. Hong Kong certainly has a high level of skills and it has developed considerable international contacts and expertise in entrepot trade. That is why it is so well placed to serve as a service centre for the whole South China region and, indeed, well beyond. I hope that British companies will take full advantage of the opportunities presented by these remarkable developments in southern China. I hope also that the press and other commentators on China will pay due credit to the successes that economic reform has produced there.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said that he thought that it was important to keep politics and business separate. I would rue the day that politicians failed to have an understanding of the needs of business whether in China or anywhere else. I believe that what the noble Lord intended us to understand was that politicians should not dabble in business. I am sure that all those of us who have been involved in business —albeit in my case some 18 years ago —have some sympathy with that view. Nevertheless, it is critically important that politicians—whether in Hong Kong, Britain or China—understand properly the need of business to get on with its job. That means having a good degree of contact.
Many of your Lordships have spoken about the airport, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who replied on behalf of the Opposition. I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words about the new airport and to seek to answer some of the questions that have been raised about certain aspects of the project. All sides are agreed that Hong Kong needs a new airport. The existing airport at Kai Tak is already congested and has been for years. Only very minor further expansion—hardly any, I fear—is practicable there. The Kai Tak airport is also in the heart of urban Kowloon, which could so much benefit from having that land area available in the future.
The projects involved in the new airport at Chek Lap Kok are huge, but they are vital if Hong Kong is to sustain and improve its position as a financial and trading centre in the region well into the next century. They will provide not only a new airport but greatly expanded port facilities and much more land to improve the living environment of many people.

223
In September 1991 the Prime Minister signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese Premier on the airport. It listed all the core projects. The Chinese undertook to support the projects and to take a positive attitude to funding proposals, including government-guaranteed borrowing by corporations. The Hong Kong Government undertook to build the airport to the maximum extent possible by 30th June 1997. To allay Chinese concerns about the impact on Government finances, the Hong Kong Government undertook to plan their finances with the firm objective of having not less than 25 billion Hong Kong dollars in the reserves on 30th June 1997.
The aim of the Hong Kong Government has not changed: it is to build the airport in the most cost-effective way possible. Detailed cost estimates have now been prepared. There has been some increase in costs over the original estimates for the very reason of inflation that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has mentioned, but rigorous control mechanisms are now in place. A key point is that the cost to the Hong Kong Government has not increased.
We and the Hong Kong Government have been discussing with the Chinese the details of the financial arrangements. It is understandable that the Chinese Government wish to be clear about exactly what is being proposed. There are time constraints. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, Hong Kong needs to be able to proceed with the projects in the summer if there are not to be delays. It is common ground that any problems should be resolved as quickly as possible. Last Friday, while we were in Rio, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed these issues with the Chinese Premier, Mr. Li Peng. They both reaffirmed their commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding. They agreed that further high-level talks should be held, either at ministerial or official level, in order to reach quick agreement on the financial arrangements. The preparations for those are now being made. In view of the critical importance of the new airport, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, refer to the airport as a sure-fire winner. We must ensure that it is so.
Let me reiterate that these are most exciting projects. They will lay a firm foundation for Hong Kong's infrastructure development well into the 21st century. The Government will be very active in ensuring that all goes well.
A number of points were raised during the debate. I shall refer to as many as I can in the time available to me. First, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Geddes, who once again enhanced our debate in what he said, that on the subject of defence lands, negotiations are taking place with the Chinese in the joint liaison group. I am afraid that the details must remain confidential. The Chinese are aware that land is a valuable commodity in Hong Kong and that some of the land previously used for military purposes must be made free for redevelopment. But the talks are going on and we shall not let the matter rest.
224
Towards the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a number of comments, particularly about nationality. I say to him and to the House that we are well aware of the problem that some categories of people do not yet have any certainty about their right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997. The consequence of the lack of clarity as to how China's nationality law will apply from 1997 is clear to us all. We are pressing the Chinese in the general liaison group for early answers so that this uncertainty can be cleared up. We shall also tackle the question of the children born before 1983, which I know is of concern to a number of noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked about the Chinese public security bureau presence in Hong Kong. I understand that this is a very small presence of liaison officials. Their task is to help cut through the red tape on the other side of the border and thus ensure that there is co-operation in solving the recent worrying violent crimes in Hong Kong so that it is as good as it possibly can be. I am sure that in that regard the House would be supportive of this presence. I am told that the presence of this small group of liaison officials has been well received in Hong Kong as seeking to deal with the problem in a sensible way. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for their assenting nods on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, moved further into the field of the Vietnamese boat people, a matter which concerns us all. Welcome progress is being made regarding the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. The Minister with special responsibility for Hong Kong visited one of the camps during his recent visit to the territory to assess the situation for himself. The flow of migrants arriving in Hong Kong has almost ceased whereas the number of migrants returning voluntarily continues to rise. The second phase of the orderly repatriation programme has been agreed with the Vietnamese Government and I hope that we shall soon see a humane end to this long-standing problem. I can tell the House that, from my discussions with the foreign minister of Vietnam some weeks ago, the aid which we are putting into Vietnam to help with those who return to Vietnam is extremely well appreciated by the Vietnamese Government. The programme for that continues.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked when UNHCR last reviewed the system of repatriation. I cannot give him an exact date but I can tell him that from my talks with Mrs. Ogata on Monday in New York there does not seem to be a problem now. I believe that UNHCR has accepted the way in which we are now managing the return of the Vietnamese boat people. I note what the noble Lord said about urging the United States to end its embargo on Vietnam. This country has been seeking to persuade the United States of that for some considerable time.
As your Lordships are well aware, it is now just five years before Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty on 1st July 1997. The Government will be working to ensure that this takes place with minimal disruption to the daily lives of Hong Kong people. "Business as usual" may not sound a very inspiring

225
objective, but in the case of Hong Kong it is likely to be of most benefit to the people most closely concerned. We are indeed concerned with the people of Hong Kong. That is why we, for our part, are not planning any dramatic changes. It is confidence that is needed in Hong Kong. It is an end to uncertainty that is so much sought after.
I believe that Britain's record in Hong Kong is one of which we can be proud. The success story of Hong Kong is due not least to the people of Hong Kong themselves. But Britain has also provided over the past 150 years an administration which has been effective and fair. We have sought very largely to leave the people of Hong Kong free to run their own affairs, and this has been done with remarkable and outstanding success. This is a lesson that I am sure will not be lost on the Chinese, when they resume sovereignty five years hence.
This has been a most interesting and fascinating debate. I end by thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, for introducing it today. It has served us extremely well.
5.47 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. It has been a most illuminating debate in terms of the vigour of points of view produced and the variety of sources of knowledge about Hong Kong and China which have been reflected in what has been said. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for the fullness of her reply and its very positive content. I am glad that she covered so satisfactorily the questions asked about the Government's intentions with regard to democracy and the airport. I do not wish to comment on any of the points made by her or by noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers. Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

UNRWA: Work with Palestinian Refugees
5.48 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to call attention to the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Middle East; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this debate is well timed in view of the informal meeting of governments shortly to take place in Amman, Jordan, on 23rd and 24th June. I look forward to listening to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich, all the more so because of his connection with the Third Order of St. Francis, who was in his day a peace-maker in the Middle East.
In January of this year I spent three weeks visiting Syria, Jordan, the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Jerusalem. I had the privilege of meeting the international and locally-recruited staff of UNRWA and of seeing much of their work. The quality and calibre of the staff is most
226
impressive, and I am grateful to them for their hospitality and welcome. Their dedication and commitment, despite many difficulties, deserve high praise.
I became convinced that the humanitarian work of this United Nations agency is quite indispensable. It is likely to be needed for many years, even after the successful establishment of Palestinian self-government. At present, the existence of UNRWA is the one thing that assures displaced and exiled Palestinians that they have not been totally forgotten by the international community. The fruit of its very good educational work over many years is a pool of talent and brain power among the Palestinian people which is second to none in the Middle East. It will be a precious asset for the future peace and prosperity of the whole region.
As your Lordships will know, the agency began its work in the chaos and confusion of 1950. It defined precisely who counts as a refugee: a person qualifies who was a resident of mandated Palestine before 1948, and who lost both his home and his livelihood because of Arab-Israeli hostilities. The children and further descendants of the original refugees are also so entitled.
A year ago, there were over 2.5 million refugees; that is to say, about half the total Palestinian population of the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and also those who live in Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon. Of that 2.5 million, about 35 per cent. live in camps. Such camps were originally tented or hutted. They have long since been transformed into permanent towns and villages. The fact that some two-thirds of the registered refugees live outside camps, integrated into the general population, is a tribute to the work of UNRWA and to the capacity for self-help and mutual help of the Palestinians.
The agency has worked through difficult times: the 1967 war, 1970 in Jordan, the Lebanese civil war, the invasion of the Lebanon in 1982 and the intifada since 1987, combined with the severe impact of the Gulf War. For example, UNRWA's schools in the occupied territories were completely closed for about 10 months in 1988 and 1989. Even today, a few schools are probably still closed in Gaza, while youth centres are not functioning on the West Bank, as I saw with my own eyes. Curfews are still hampering normal work in many parts of the occupied territories.
The three main functions of the agency are primary health care, welfare and relief, together with education and vocational training. Those functions absorb about 80 per cent. of the annual regular budget exceeding 500 million dollars. Public health measures and the immunisation of all children have been so successful that there has been no major outbreak of any communicable disease among the refugees since 1949. Perinatal mortality is commendably low, because of good pre- and post-natal care. Relief food programmes are now normally restricted to some 162,000 special welfare cases.
With the help of voluntary bodies, impressive work is being done for handicapped children and adults. Primary and secondary schools cater for about

227
370,000 children, while there are over 5,000 places in teacher training and vocational centres. Such is the pressure on the available school buildings that they nearly all operate on a two-shift system, with different children and teachers coming in the morning and the afternoon. That is a major feat of organisation and self-discipline. Indeed, it is quite a sight to see the change-over taking place, with one group of children arriving while the other returns home.
"Works" is the fourth word in UNRWA's title. That aspect is likely to grow in importance. Already a much needed new hospital is planned for the Gaza Strip. High unemployment in each of the agency's operating areas makes job creation necessary and urgent. The agency already has a modest revolving fund for starter loans to small businesses. In future, I should like to see the agency developing major public works, in ways reminiscent of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States or the various development agencies in Britain and Europe. New sewers are greatly needed in Gaza, and elsewhere many of the older and more overcrowded camps would benefit from redevelopment.
I turn now to the role of the United Kingdom in these matters. This country has been a member of UNRWA's Advisory Commission since the start. We have been major contributors to the agency's budget which is virtually all provided by voluntary governmental contributions. In 1991, we gave about 10.7 million dollars. We thus come eighth in the list of contributing governments—a reasonable enough position but one, nevertheless, that left us behind smaller countries such as Canada, Sweden and Norway.
I am therefore asking Her Majesty's government to use their utmost efforts to be more generous. In particular, I should like to see specific British donations to UNRWA's capital and special projects, to the emergency measures for the Lebanon and the occupied territories and also, if needed, for the planned Gaza General Hospital. So far as I know, there were no British contributions to those earmarked funds in 1991. Will there be special contributions to those funds in this and in subsequent years?
Such help is very much needed because UNRWA has no regular source of funds for capital work. It is obliged to proceed ad hoc and from hand to mouth. The kind of projects that it is undertaking are not ones for which normal borrowing is likely to be possible. Conceivably, very soft loans might be usable for a part of the necessary capital investment. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain why the agency has been faced with an exceptionally unfavourable operating climate in recent years.
The combined effect of the intifada, the immigration of Soviet Jews into Israel and the Gulf war have all severely prejudiced the Palestinians generally, but especially the refugees. The intifada drew down severe Israeli repression, with curfews, pass laws and all kinds of restrictions. The arrival of large numbers of Jews from Russia meant reduced work opportunities
228
for Palestinians within the state of Israel. The Gulf crisis slashed the remittances of expatriate Palestinians, almost at a stroke.
Over 300,000 Palestinians were obliged to return from the Gulf and from Saudi Arabia. Most of them went to Jordan, but some moved on into the occupied territories. As a result, unemployment rose to about 30 per cent. in Jordan and up to 40 per cent. in the West Bank and Gaza. It has been estimated that there was a loss of remittances of some 310 million dollars per annum. On top of that, the abnormally severe winter of 1991–92 caused losses to Palestinian agriculture of about 20 million dollars, without counting storm damage to houses and other property.
I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to make good all the massive losses that have fallen on the Palestinian economy. Nevertheless, strategic help, over a few years, to UNRWA's capital projects would, I think, provide excellent value for money. For example, the agency considers that it must produce a minimum of 4,000 new houses in the Lebanon and 5,000 in the West Bank and Gaza. That will be social housing for families in urgent need. The cost will be about 9.4 million dollars and it is estimated that the programme would create 450 jobs for one year. Similarly, British contributions to the revolving loan fund would create employment and remove people from the lists for welfare food and relief.
Those are only instances of the ways in which quite modest aid would enable UNRWA to plan its capital works with some confidence over the medium term. In a similar way, modest help to British voluntary bodies working with the Palestinians would make it possible for them to bring forward useful projects. I am thinking of such bodies as Medical Aid for Palestinians, Save the Children Fund and ABCD—an organisation working with handicapped people, especially the many young people who suffered serious injury arising out of the intifada.
I am not simply making a plea for more funding for UNRWA—desirable as that no doubt is—or for the related British voluntary organisations. There is a wider front on which the Government can be helpful, and I am sure that they will. As I have mentioned, we are members of the agency's advisory commission, which I understand functions as its governing body. Political support there, and also in the European Community, in the Commonwealth and in the wider circles of the United Nations, could produce invaluable results. I trust that such action will be an important item during the forthcoming British presidency of the European Community. Wider support for UNRWA can be considered a confidence-building measure in the current Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I say that because the activities of the agency overlap both major strands of the current peace negotiations. I am convinced that it is greatly in the interests of the whole of the rest of the world that the peace negotiations should reach successful conclusions. UNRWA has a part to play in the resolution of the Palestinian question.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising this matter and for introducing it in a speech which gave us a recent first-hand feel for the problems facing UNRWA at the moment. I am very glad to join him in paying tribute to an organisation which 43 years ago I played a very minor part in founding. The truth is that few of us at that time would have thought it conceivable that UNRWA could still be in existence in the 1990s. It is a measure of the failure of the United Nations to get a political settlement of this problem which would allow the refugees to live in freedom and in decent conditions.
As the noble Lord said, UNRWA now faces much bigger and more difficult responsibilities than it did in the old days. At the beginning, there were only 750,000 refugees. Today, as he said, there are more than 2.5 million, and the number is growing by 3 per cent. a year owing to one of the highest birth rates in the world. In addition, there are at least 250,000 refugees from Kuwait and other Arab countries.
There has also been a great increase in the harassment of UNRWA by the Israeli authorities. I quote from the Commissioner-General's last report:
"Area staff members were frequently arrested and detained, often without charge or trial, and two were deported from the Gaza Strip to south Lebanon. Violation of UN RWA premises by the Israeli security forces and misuse of those premises by certain local elements both remained serious problems."
The report continues,
"The treatment of staff members in detention continued to cause concern to the Agency. Staff members were subjected to beatings and various other forms of physical abuse, in particular during interrogation".
In these circumstances, I consider that the achievements of UNRWA have been remarkable and should be warmly praised. UNRWA has provided in fair measure, education, health services, social services and general assistance to the Palestinians in more than 600 schools, in more than 100 health centres and in many other establishments. UNRWA has not only saved Palestinian lives, it has done much to save Palestinian nationhood and Palestinian culture.
However, the organisation now faces a very critical situation. There is a huge birthrate and the casualties of the intifada have placed a tremendous strain on its health services. Its provision of education is subject to the traumatic upsets when the Israelis from time to time close 'schools and universities. Those who have ever visited an UNRWA school will have seen immediately the desperate desire of Palestinian children for education. It is heartbreaking to think of the permanent damage done to their education and their careers by the closure of the schools and universities.
Perhaps the most critical problem facing UNRWA at the moment is the provision of food, especially in Gaza. Many scores of thousands of heads of Palestinian families have been deprived of any chance of earning a living. In spite of the job creation efforts of UNRWA, there is no work for them in Gaza; they are denied travel permits; they are denied work permits; they are often confined to their homes by long and strict curfews; and they simply cannot buy
230
food for their families and for themselves. That applies not only to refugees but to other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA is thus compelled to step in.
The Israelis still tax Palestinians in Gaza but they do not provide either the food, the health services, the education or the social services which taxpayers are normally entitled to expect. It is a strange situation when an occupying power takes measures which deprive the occupied people of food and then leaves it to the charity of the outside world, through UNRWA, to save them from starvation.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I should like the Minister to tell us more about the contribution that Britain makes. We are, after all, especially responsible here not only because we failed to safeguard the rights of the Palestinians as we promised in the Balfour Declaration, but because we took the initiative in starting the organisation; and because we have provided, in John Reddaway and Bernard Mills and others, some of the best administrators that UNRWA has had.
The noble Lord said that he thought that we were eighth in the world in the table of contributions. I make it seventh, after reading the latest UNRWA report. But I agree with him, that that is not very grand. In the old days we were second—second to the Americans. I ask the noble Baroness when she comes to reply to explain whether perhaps we have made further contributions, not recorded; and if not, what future contributions are we going to make to assist UNRWA in its very heavy new tasks and responsibilities, and to contribute to the capital works about which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke. Perhaps more important: what more are the Government doing to obtain the implementation of the Security Council resolutions on Palestine and the implementation of the Geneva Conventions? What more are the Government doing so that this illegal and brutal occupation can be brought to an end?
Personally, I was not greatly reassured by the answers we heard in the House this afternoon. The fact is that Israel, like other countries should not merely be encouraged to observe Security Council resolutions, in the last resort it must be required to observe Security Council resolutions. I hope that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she can reassure the House that that is also the view of the British Government.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, first, perhaps I may express my gratitude to Members of the House for the warmth of their welcome when I was introduced at the beginning of the year. I am deeply conscious of the honour of being a Member of the House, and, in so far as my diary and other commitments allow, I hope to take a full and proper part in its affairs.
I was initially hesitant in proposing to make my maiden speech during this debate, but it is a subject which is close to my heart and one in which I have a certain amount of experience. I am, among other things, co-chairman of the dialogue that is continuing

231
between the Anglican Communion worldwide and the members of the Oriental orthodox churches —the Copts, the Ethiopians, Syrians and Armenians who form some of the indigenous churches in the region.
I am the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich which is in the county of Suffolk. I am responsible for almost the whole of the county apart from one small corner which is the responsibility of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. The county of Suffolk and the refugee problem would appear to be far away from each other, although Suffolk's coastline has been crossed on a number of occasions in the past. The Vikings caused a major refugee problem, and the Huguenots arrived as refugees from religious persecution. Conversely of course the Pilgrim Fathers later left us.
The difference between those earlier movements of people and those to which we give our attention this afternoon, and other more recent refugee crises, is that in the earlier cases the people were, on the whole, rapidly absorbed into the culture into which they moved. They quickly lost their identity. That is not true of the Palestinians who, 40 years and more after the camps were set up, remain there and in far greater numbers. That is a political matter, and the solution must be a political one. My prayers, thoughts and good wishes are with the Israeli Government—the present one and whoever will be in power after next week's Israeli elections—and all those involved in the peace process.
My emphasis this afternoon will be on the human element of the problem. In my album at home I have a photograph of a scene which, on the face of it, looks beautiful. It is a picture of a large lake, at the far end of which is a collection of dwellings which look romantic. They are reflected, as is the sun, in the surface of the water. That photograph was taken in the Gaza refugee camp of Jabalia. Its peace and tranquillity are an illusion. The houses at the far end of the lake are a hugger-mugger of small dwellings crowded closely together. They are made of breeze block, corrugated iron and whatever else is available. There are alleyways between the houses and water supplies and sewage are a permanent problem. The lake is not a lake. It is a cesspool with all the incipient and permanent dangers of an epidemic.
That there has been no major epidemic in the 40 years of the Palestinian refugee camps is due to two things. First, it is due to UNRWA's massive policy of immunisation and healthcare for which it deserves a great deal of praise. The second reason lies with the Palestinian people themselves—their care, cooperation, dignity and personality. If we were to enter one of the houses, we should find ourselves in a house with one or two rooms with three or four generations living together. We should be welcomed with dignity, courtesy and pride. We would notice that the floor was swept and clean; that the beds were piled in a corner during the day, with perhaps a picture on the wall and a stick or two of furniture for daytime use.
If we were to see the children going to school we should see them in crisp clean uniforms. If we were to visit one of the work centres in the settlement, we should see the Palestinian women working diligently
232
at their sewing machines, and producing excellent craftsmanship. I have some stoles in my Bishop's chapel which I use for celebration of the Holy Communion. They were made by Palestinian women. They are beautifully executed by caring women of intelligence. I confess to my own prejudice the surprise I felt when I first met Palestinian women and men who were graduates with better degrees than I have ever been able to acquire and who were far removed from that straight-out-of-the-desert image that Yasser Arafat manages to present to us.
I am sure that your Lordships will allow me to mention the presence of the Christian Church in that area. I do not suggest that relief should go to Christians rather than to Moslems or members of any other faith, community or none; but their presence is significant although it be I per cent. only. They are members of the churches that I have already mentioned plus the orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and others. They are most obvious at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where their cooperation is rather forced. Out in the fields, as members of the Middle Eastern Council of Churches, their co-operation is evident. They are working with UNRWA in the relief work.
We are talking about people of diligence and dignity. They are in need. UNRWA's work is important to them. I am delighted to know that the British Government are among the major contributors to that work. Long may that continue until that illusive but inevitable result is discovered: peace and security for all in the region.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his moving maiden speech. I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing from him again. I am pleased that he is joining those of us who take an interest in affairs outside this country. I do not have a first-hand knowledge of his diocese, but I believe that it is beautiful. I have a second-hand knowledge of it which was acquired from sitting in committee upstairs on the Felixstowe Docks and Harbour Bill. That was the parliamentary equivalent of "The Mousetrap". At least I have a fairly good working knowledge of the communications, trade, and so forth, of his area. We welcome him to our counsels and look forward to hearing from him again.
On these occasions, it is customary to thank the mover of the Motion; but on this occasion, my thanks will be best described as tepid, because I have mentioned previously in your Lordships' House what seems to me to be an almost obsessional interest in Arab/Israeli affairs. Indeed, if we spent as much time on other world problems as we do on this small part of the world, the House would have to sit 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, to clear the backlog of debates. At this time when peace negotiations are in progress and we have the unprecedented situation of the two sides talking to each other and meeting, I feel that if we do not say too much about it. that would probably be helpful.

233
The problem of refugees in the world is quite appalling for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. However, I believe we do a disservice if we concentrate too much on one particular aspect. In replying to the previous debate, the Minister mentioned Mrs. Ogata who recently took up her duties. She is faced with about 17 million refugees on her books, and it is disappointing to realise that with the end of the Cold War we have situations creating conflict and refugee problems on a scale we have not been used to for a long time. There is also friction: the developed nations are at odds with the third world. Some of the speeches at Rio accused us of entering a neo-colonialist phase and patronising them.
We face many problems, and your Lordships' House should concentrate on them rather than returning again and again to the comparatively small part of the world under discussion today.
The position is serious with this growth in the number of refugees. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned the severe impact of the Gulf war. I obtained from the Library the UN Chronicle, dated September 1991. The headline of an article in it states:
"The Gulf: 5 million and counting.
"It has been termed the 'fastest growing refugee situation in modern history' … it does not take a historian to see that the present crisis in the Gulf region has produced an unprecedented human exodus".
We are familiar with the situation, but it was not caused by the Israelis. Iraq attacked and entered Kuwait, generating an enormous problem. I do not recall any recent debates in this House on the plight of millions of people who, almost overnight, became refugees, living in appalling conditions. I very much fear that some Palestinian refugees in the camps are kept there for cosmetic reasons, as visual aids, in order to try to impress the world with the alleged intransigence of Israel in doing nothing about them. I am sure that it would have been possible for conditions to have been improved. The Arab states, with their enormous oil revenues, need not have stood aside. One cannot help feeling that the refugees have been kept in these conditions for a purpose: to blacken the Israeli Government.
I have spoken previously in the House about conditions in the Sudan. Repression is appalling in southern Sudan where the population is largely Christian or Animist. I invite the right reverend Prelate who spoke earlier to join me on future occasions in pressing the case for our Christian brothers and sisters in the Sudan who are suffering oppression by the Moslem north. Reinforcing the point I make about the cosmetic nature of some of the actions, I see an article in the publication, the Mideast Mirror for 20th May 1992. It states:
"Sudanese donation for Gaza.
"Sudan is donating 5,000 tons of foodstuffs to inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, Sudanese military ruler … al-Bashir [announced].
"He called on all Arabs and Moslems to help their 'Palestinian brethren,' and said Khartoum sought to set an example despite its own economic hardships".
"Economic hardships" is an understatement for conditions in the southern part of Sudan among the Christian population who suffer the most extreme
234
privations of famine and disease. Yet this gesture was made. The food should go to people in al-Bashir's own country who are literally starving to death because of conditions there.
The whole subject of refugees should be considered by your Lordships in a wider context. We should realise that the world is moving on, and we are now presented with problems in countries where we never thought they would arise. We know of the problems in eastern Europe, the disgraceful fighting in Yugoslavia where again there is repression on a religious basis. All this requires urgent attention.
I do not believe that we should flatter ourselves that the world is hanging on every word that is said in your Lordships' House; but we have some influence. People in eminent positions read our debates, particularly when they are germane to their own countries. Thus we must widen our perspective, allow the Arab/Israeli peace talks to continue with as little interference from elsewhere as possible. We must hope that they reach a successful conclusion. We should widen our vision and move away from the narrow, almost tunnel vision about a small area of the Middle East and consider the enormous problems. If they are not resolved, they will soon lead to insupportable conditions for virtually the whole human race.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I congratulate the maiden speaker and hope that, with his breadth of vision and experience in the Middle East, he will contribute not only to regional debates but to debates on world affairs. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his positive and upbeat contribution earlier when he asked for confidence-building measures in the Middle East.
Naturally, this debate is set in a more minor key. In some ways, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that it is perhaps untimely because we shall soon know the result of the general election in Israel. That will seriously affect the pace and depth of the autonomy talks which are at the centre of the Arab-Israeli negotiations.
In another way, it is appropriate to appraise not only the working record of UNRWA, but its whole ethos and philosophy. Its operations in the Middle East are as old as the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is more than ever appropriate because it can be seen against the sombre backcloth of the escalating ethnic hatreds, not only in the Middle East but also in areas which lie within two hours' flying time of London and less than an hour from Athens and Trieste.
The reason I can only give one or two cheers for the United Nations relief organisation in the Middle East —and I have seen the selfless work of many of its officials at first hand during at least 20 visits to camps in Gaza and the West Bank in over 40 years—is that the whole message, purpose and ethos of the organisation is to cater for a displaced people in transit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we want to see the Palestinian Arabs settled. I agree that it must happen as soon as possible and that 42 years is a very long time. I do not agree with him on his one-sided recital of grievances against Israel or

235
on the chronology of who did what, when it happened and how peace might have been restored or a settlement arrived at. I go beyond what he said. I believe that the Palestinian people are not only the most advanced, best educated and potentially the most effective component of the Arab family of nations but, second to none, they have been misled, badly deceived and betrayed by irresponsible leaders and callous neighbours.
The enormity of the injustice to the Palestinians —I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will agree at least with this formula—is at least partly the fault of the mighty Arab world which in the course of two world wars has graduated from Turkish vassalage to a family of 23 sovereign nations. It has not offered to settle at least a portion of the total number of Palestinian refugees within its borders. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked Her Majesty's Government what action they and the European Community are taking to help build confidence among the parties, the most important and the most convincing decision could be for a number of Arab countries to turn at least one part of the refugee population into citizens.
Of course it is to be hoped that the current negotiations will lead to a self-governing Arab polity in the West Bank and will one day eventually lead to an Arab independent country that would combine the present Hashemite Kingdom and those parts of the West Bank and Gaza that would be conceded by Israel as part of a territorial compromise. But it is a myth to think that those territories will absorb the entire Arab/Palestinian diaspora. A great and mighty nation like Germany has solemnly renounced its claims to the lands beyond the River Oder or the Sudetenland as a result of its defeat in war. Is it really illogical and not understandable that a state in Israel's position that has been four times attacked by its neighbours—and has thrown them back—should wish to secure its borders not only by contractual arrangements but also by defence motivated territorial adjustments?
UNRWA has always stood out against anything that smacks of permanence. Time and again successive Israeli governments have offered to rehouse refugees in permanent homes in Gaza but those governments have been rejected. The other day a distinguished Jordanian politician said, not without a tone of dignity and pride, that refugee encampments in Jordan were not as a matter of principle allowed permanent roofing in order to demonstrate that the encampments were not permanent.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the school system. I concede that that system has involved an enormous task undertaken by some wonderful people. However, I must say in the same breath that there have been many incidents which indicate that the schooling, supervised by UNRWA, does not discourage militancy or the advocacy of violence and terror.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis and Jews abroad stand for a lasting peace and at least one-half of the Israeli electorate and possibly more also stand for a lasting peace. At least one-half of world Jewry and possibly more would opt for a generous compromise. However, there must be a sense of
236
proportion and an active will on the part of the Arab world—one would hope that it would be massively supported by the international community—to make it clear that if such a compromise is to be reached the permanent settlement of a large number of homeless Palestinians, not only in Jordan and the West Bank but elsewhere in the Arab world, must be an instant high priority. If this cannot be done, the danger to peace is great indeed and the current peace conference between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis and the Arab world will be just one more frame in the endless slide show of false dawns.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to follow the tone of either of the previous two speeches. I prefer to follow the tone of the right reverend Prelate whom I congratulate on his maiden speech although it is not proper for subsequent speakers so to do. Nevertheless I shall do so. That is perhaps a Whip's privilege although I am not certain about that. I was interested to hear the right reverend Prelate's remarks about Vikings because I believe that somewhere inside me there is a Viking gene or two. It is possible that my ancestors passed through part of the right reverend Prelate's diocese on the way to the better parts of the country in the North-West of England.
We are pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is in her place today. She has had an immensely tiring week. The other day she was in Rio and then in New York. She was in Hong Kong earlier this afternoon and now she is in the Middle East. She deserves congratulations on being present to listen to our debate today.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is to be congratulated on placing this Motion on the Order Paper, I support the excellent work of UNRWA. believe that pretty well everyone who has visited the West Bank and Gaza will have seen the enormous courage and patience of the UNRWA workers and the strain which they have to put up with when doing their remarkably good work. As has been indicated already, the scale of the problems is huge. At the moment UNRWA's special hardship programme for the West Bank and Gaza is assisting something like 18,000 families who do not have a male adult who is medically fit to work. One-quarter of those people are living in dilapidated, unhygienic housing and many other houses are badly in need of repair. It is estimated that something like 5,000 homes need replacement or innovation in the next few years.
A housing rehabilitation programme has been started thanks to the work of UNRWA and basic decisions on the scale and nature of the rebuilding are being determined by local Palestinian architects and engineers. That is a further indication of the skills which exist in that area. This aid is not patronising aid. It is intended to bring forth the skills of the people and to enable them to assist themselves in improving their standard of living.
Small-scale contractors are engaged by the agency, and such a course offers a considerable alleviation of the unemployment situation. The noble Lord, Lord

237
Hylton, referred to that situation. The families themselves are expected to carry out minor repairs and to get help from their neighbours and the local community, but with technical assistance from UNRWA. That again is a valuable use of the funds which pass through that admirable organisation.
A similar programme is required for the Lebanon. As we know, the political situation there is stabilising but nevertheless there is an enormous amount of dereliction left behind. Large numbers of refugees are returning to homes that have been destroyed both by Arabs and by Israelis. Here the organisation offers cement and cash to the level of something like 50 per cent. of the cost of restoration. This is assisted do-it-yourself and that is by far the most admirable way of producing the right results. As has been said, there is always a lack of cash. Donations to the West Bank and Gaza have been received since 1989 totalling 2 million dollars from Kuwait, Italy, the European Community and the US. However, when all that money is spent, less than 13 per cent. of the needs will have been dealt with.
The Commissioner-General of UNRWA wrote to governments at the back end of last year seeking extra financial support for the project in the Lebanon. He asked for 3 million dollars in 1992. I understand that so far no money has been forthcoming. In the same letter Mr. Turkmen drew attention to the 7,000 additional pupils who are registered in UNRWA schools in Jordan. Those additional pupils have arisen directly as a result of the Gulf war. A further 1,300 extra children are registered in Gaza. We have discussed the Gulf war and its results before. I have described the real hardships that are being felt in spite of our supposed great victory over Saddam Hussein. I refer to the people who are washed up on the beach as a result of the steamroller having gone through—now there is a wonderful mixed metaphor!
Is there no way in which the Government can contribute more money for those special requirements? No one denies that the Government are paying their fair share, and they are to be congratulated on doing so. We all know that the ODA has an enormous number of commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, is right to point to places such as the Sudan and to recognise that there are many demands on our foreign aid which are perhaps greater and more pressing than those of Gaza and the West Bank. However, there is a specific and well-organised scheme which will help a significant number of people and I beg the Government to consider emergency funding and to see whether there is some way of meeting that demand.
The situation is not improving. We have considerable sympathy when we read of Israeli citizens being murdered in the Gaza Strip. We also have sympathy with the people in the refugee camps when they are attacked by settlers. An unfortunate incident occurred recently when one of the UNRWA food distribution centres was attacked by 15 young vandals who broke into the refrigerators, knocked holes in the tins of oil and mixed the oil with the flour which was in store. It is sad that money which has been donated
238
by governments, agencies and ordinary people to provide help and food should be treated in that way, but I suppose that that is one of the natural consequences of the lack of success in the peace process so far. Again, I echo what the last few speakers have said. At the end of the day it is important to ensure that the peace process continues to a successful conclusion.
I should like to say a word or two about the situation in Kuwait. The position of Palestinians in Kuwait is particularly serious because many of them are virtually stateless. Prior to the Iraqi invasions there were something like 400,000 Palestinians in Kuwait and it is thought that about 200,000 left during the occupation. By the end of 1991 between 50,000 and 60,000 were thought to remain. Those who remain are having a particularly difficult time. Many are people whose families came from Gaza in the days of the old mandate many years ago. They do not have Israeli documents. In fact, they do not have any documents. There are also some people with Egyptian documents which they received when they lived in the Gaza Strip but which are no longer acceptable and on which they are no longer permitted to return to Israel.
I have written to Mr. Turkmen, the Commissioner-General today, in my role of Chairman of the Middle East Committee of the Refugee Council saying that we are particularly concerned about the impact of the deadline which expired on 31st May for Palestinians and other non-Kuwaitis to obtain residents' permits, although we understand that that has been extended to 31st July for families with children and for teachers. However, the position of Palestinians who do not receive permits is still unclear, particularly in the case of those who hold only Egyptian travel documents. We understand that the Government of Kuwait have given an undertaking that they will not deport stateless persons to any country where they would be at risk. However, there have been persistent reports that pressure has been brought on some Palestinians to leave even though they have not been formally issued with deportation orders. I should like to ask the Government what they know of the position at the moment and what steps they are taking to put pressure on the Kuwaiti Government to ease the situation of those poor people.
We are aware that UNRWA's mandate is limited to registered refugees although it does, both in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories, extend those services to non-registered Palestinians and therefore plays a role in protecting Palestinians as a whole.
We hope that UNRWA is able to send a further mission to Kuwait to discuss those urgent issues. I hope that the Government, both directly and through their presidency of the European Community in the coming six months, will be able to use their influence to assist in resolving some of the difficulties which exist in Kuwait and which in due time will flow back into Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
This is a matter of considerable concern. It may concern a small area but, as the right reverend Prelate properly said, we are talking about people and in particular about people who are in great need. I know that the Government are sympathetic and I hope that

239
when she replies the noble Baroness will be able to give some help and some answers to some of the questions that have been raised this afternoon.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I believe that a tribute is due to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for putting the Motion to the House today. In my first year in this House I have come to recognise his very distinguished contribution to humanitarian concerns across the world and in the United Kingdom itself. We know that that is no passing interest but something which is very deep in his commitment to politics. The value of the debate this evening, although brief, has spoken for itself. I am sure that all of us, in thinking about the work of UNRWA, would also want to remember the work of the other voluntary agencies operating in that area.
My noble friend Lord Cocks made the point, which he has made before, about not overdoing our interest in the Middle East at the expense of other parts of the world. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point because the refugee crisis internationally, as the noble Baroness knows better than most, is appalling. In considering this issue and the courageous and committed work of those involved we would do well to spare some time remembering those grappling with challenges which are at least as great in other parts of the world.
In addition, we should all like to join in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. I, too, have had the privilege of visiting the places he described. Listening to his graphic account, and the simple way in which he put it, certainly brought home to me vividly the experiences I have had in the past. People in his diocese are very fortunate to have a leader who can speak to them in those terms.
Estimating the size of the Palestinian population outside Palestine is difficult as those in the diaspora travel on documents issued by their host countries. In 1989, as has been suggested, it was estimated that just under 5 million Palestinians were living in different countries around the world and that too many had been refugees for 40 years.
UNRWA is responsible for providing education, health and relief services to Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Not all Palestinians who live in those areas are registered with UNRWA, but in the Near East, as has been suggested, some 2.2 million Palestinian refugees are so registered. I believe that to obtain a sense of the measure of the work which confronts UNRWA it is necessary to look at the geo-political context.
The 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are probably in by far the worst conditions. Two-thirds are considered by the Lebanese Government to be refugees who lost their homes in 1948. They are allowed minimum rights such as identity cards and travel documents which declare them to be stateless. The other one-third have no rights at all. In a country where the economy is in ruins Palestinian refugees have no rights to work outside the camps and are
240
effectively cooped up in squalid ghettos on the edges of the main cities. The drastic drop in remittances from relatives in the Gulf, formerly an important means of survival, has meant increasing destitution for those people. That is a matter to which, in effect, my noble friend Lord Cocks referred.
By comparison, Syria has allowed its 300,000 Palestinians comparative freedom. They have identity cards, which give them the right of residence, and travel documents. They have been allowed to form their own regimen and are able to work outside their camps including work in posts in the Civil Service.
More than half of Jordan's population is made up of Palestinians from Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Jordanian Government are understandably ambivalent about the Palestinian population. UNRWA estimates that there are 1 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, but the Jordanian Government give an estimate of half that number. That government allow all Palestinians, except those who come from Gaza, Jordanian passports identifying them as Palestinians. However, the situation of Palestinians of Gaza origin in Jordan remains an unsolved problem which means that they cannot travel. Legally, Gaza falls under Egyptian jurisdiction which is why Jordan takes that position. There is a high degree of integration of Palestinians within the Jordanian state but also a high level of control. The 11 camps remain extremely unattractive places in which to live with poor standards of housing, sewage and other basic services.
That then is just a glimpse of the magnitude of the ongoing humanitarian challenge facing UNRWA. On top of what I have described there is, in addition, the exposed position of the Palestinians under acute pressure in Kuwait, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred. UNRWA is anxious to shoulder its protection responsibility for them as rapidly as possible and deserves all the support that can be mustered to enable it to do so—not least the dispatch of a monitoring delegation at the earliest possible date. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us today what the United Kingdom Government plan to do to help in that respect.
Funding for UNRWA's regular programme is relatively secure. But funding is badly needed for three special aspects of its work. The first is the emergency budget which covers the refugee affairs programme the only UN international mechanism to monitor Israeli practice and to watch over the well-being of the Palestinian refugees in the Occupied Territories. The second is the special development projects which are important as assistance to Palestinians in building up their own structures in preparation for autonomy and statehood. The third special need is in the Occupied Territories where there is the additional burden for UNRWA and the Palestinian refugees brought about by the elimination of remittances from Palestinians working in Kuwait, the imposed reduction of job opportunities in Israel and, most recently, the partial closing of Gaza.
I understand that the United Kingdom Government do not support the first two special needs. That seems to me very sad. I hope that the

241
noble Baroness will indicate a change of policy in that respect. It would be good to hear exactly what support has been provided for the third special need.
Perhaps may be more specific. In November last UNRWA made a special appeal for support for work beyond its normal responsibilities and budget in 1992. That was for some 14 million dollars for refugee affairs officers, expanded health services and food distribution in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories, a situation aggravated by the intifada and the Israeli counter measures; for about 2 million dollars for additional school facilities in Gaza for 1,300 pupils who returned with their families from the Gulf; and for about 4 million dollars for additional schools, classrooms, teachers, health facilities, relief and social services in Jordan where the economy, stretched to the limit by the Gulf war, could not cope with the influx of 300,000 people from Kuwait and other Gulf countries—that point was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Cocks; by last November 7,000 additional pupils had been registered in UNRWA schools.
UNRWA also appealed for about 3 million dollars in 1992 towards an eventual total of 11.7 million dollars for housing, schools, and other infrastructure to alleviate the acute hardship of the poorest displaced Palestinian refugees within the boundaries of existing refugee camps in Lebanon, which had been severely damaged during 15 years of civil war.
I am disturbed to learn that in April of this year UNRWA had to renew its requests of last November. In response to that 23 million dollars special appeal last November, only 6.4 million dollars had been received or pledged. In fact, only the additional measures for Gaza had been fully funded. In the meantime, an already bad situation had deteriorated. The unusually harsh winter throughout the region had caused damage to UNRWA schools, clinics and other facilities. Many homes in the refugee camps had become uninhabitable. The general socio-economic conditions in the West Bank had become worse, the economy of Jordan had yet to recover, and Lebanon had yet to see a measurable improvement in its economic situation.
I suggest that those factors amount to a major human catastrophe and that there is no room for complacency. The Government will be guaranteed full-hearted support from this side of the House if they respond on the scale required.
Funding for UNRWA is a serious issue, but so too is its role in protection. On 20th December 1991 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 681 calling on Israel to recognise the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised that point. I believe that it is important for us to hear what the Government have done to further that resolution and to know the latest situation.
To be realistic, the likelihood of an independent Palestinian state within the foreseeable future, despite the peace process, is very low. Most Palestinians in the Occupied Territories would probably settle for a federation between Israel, Jordan and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But I suspect
242
that the most they can hope for out of the present negotiations is some form of control over health, education and welfare, the precise sectors within UNRWA's mandate. If there were a peace agreement with Israel, large sections of Palestinian refugees in Syria and Jordan would probably nevertheless wish to stay where they are. Should they remain it seems probable that UNRWA will hand over responsibility for their health, education and welfare to the host governments as an interim measure pending their full integration into those two countries. However, the situation in Lebanon will be problematic because of the reluctance of the Lebanese to integrate any Palestinians.
In that respect, we must remember that UN Resolution 194 of 1949 recognises the right of all Palestinians who left in 1948—not just refugees in camps—to return to their homes. UNRWA's task was to minister to those who lost their homes until they could return or receive compensation.
The issue for UNRWA in the Occupied Territories is how to prepare for increasing Palestinian control by moving from being just a service provider to a development role in which the refugees have increasing control over their own affairs. That is a task in which both local and foreign NGOs are co-operating, especially in the fields of income generation and disability.
For Palestinian refugees UNRWA remains a symbol of the unsolved problem of Palestine: the right of return and the temporary nature of the camps. Any suggestion that it should wind down its role or even become less relief oriented and more development oriented has always been greeted with dismay by many refugees who fear some deal behind their backs. It is not an easy situation for UNRWA. However, if there is a demonstrable and clear international spirit of intent to reach a solution to the problem of Palestine, the task of UNRWA to hand over its responsibilities will be very much easier. What is clear is that as long as that spirit of intent is not evident the camps will remain a source of major social and political discontent. Without UNRWA the Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian and Israeli Governments would have a much bigger problem on their hands.
I therefore suggest that for the time being the UK should throw its weight fully behind UNRWA, perhaps even considering a support role for it in the peace negotiations. The Government should at the same time keep at the head of their foreign policy action list a just solution to the problem of Palestine. With the end of the bipolar age they should consider advocating an enhanced role for the European Community in the peace process. That is a matter to which Ministers might turn their attention during the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency.
7 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for initiating the debate. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich on an outstanding maiden speech which I heard while standing in the margins. I must apologise to him and

243
to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for not being in my place during their speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, kindly said in some personal remarks addressed to me, the last few days have been a little hectic. My absence from the Chamber for some nine minutes was therefore necessary.
The debate is most important. UNRWA is not widely and well known yet it is vital and critical to the Palestinians. It is awkward to talk about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees by its initials but it is a good deal shorter. I am indeed impressed and pleased to find the depth of your Lordships' knowledge on this vital issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has pursued with considerable dedication his interests in this part of the world and in many others, in particular his concern for refugees. The enormous humanitarian problems go back over many generations. The size and nature of the problem of refugees in the Middle East and our involvement with the region during many years has meant that we are full supporters of the vital work which UNRWA has undertaken since its inception some 42 years ago.
There have been many comments about our contributions to UNRWA. During the past five years they have exceeded £30 million, which is a substantial sum for an organisation dealing with a relatively small but nevertheless vitally important part of the world. We are consistently in the top six donor countries. Indeed, we have recently been fifth and not seventh or eighth as we have heard tonight. That does not mean that we should not be looking at the future needs of UNRWA, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said.
The British Government support UNRWA politically as well as financially. That is an important point, in particular when one considers the complexity of the refugee problems and the fact that there are 60 million refugees worldwide, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. We are also extremely well aware of the difficult conditions under which UNRWA must work. There are many unwarranted intrusions into its legitimate efforts to assist refugees. It is to UNRWA's great credit that it has been able to do so much. However, so much more needs to be done because today there are many more Palestinians in need.
I pay great tribute to the dedicated staff of UNRWA, to their hard work and to their inventiveness in dealing with the many different problems which beset them. The organisation has achieved good results in education, which is taking some 46.5 per cent. of its overall budget; in health, which takes between 18 and 20 per cent. of its regular budget; and in its relief work, which takes some 12 per cent. more. The organisation provides many emergency services. It gives a service operationally to many of the smaller enterprises within its scope. It is interesting to note how well UNRWA has helped local people to develop during the years. In other words, it has helped people to help themselves, and in that it is most certainly to be further encouraged, as in so much of its other work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me some specific questions of which he kindly gave advance
244
notice. He asked in particular about UNRWA's capital budget and its spending on special projects. We have indicated to UNRWA that we shall consider modest project requests, although we have given our main support to the general fund and to funding ongoing activities. We have done that because without such assurance UNRWA would have been unable to plan ahead. I am always prepared, as I hope your Lordships know, to look at the applicability of our funds to see whether they can be even better targeted and used.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the extraordinary measures for Lebanon and the occupied territories and about the expanded programme of assistance. Several noble Lords asked similar questions. It is true that we have not contributed to those items. They have been funded by extra-budgetary contributions. It is because we felt that it was wise to keep UNRWA's general fund topped up that we have not so far contributed to them. I shall return to that issue later.
I was asked about the Gaza General Hospital. Britain has not contributed directly to that hospital. However, the Government have made a contribution via our share of the European Community support for the hospital. The EC is the major donor to the project. If time allows I shall return to that matter later. Through the European Community we have supported all the programmes that I have mentioned: the capital and special projects, the EM LOT, the expanded programme of assistance and the Gaza General Hospital.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, further asked whether we would give political support to UNRWA in its advisory committee, in the EC forum and in the UN forum. The answer is that we already do so and we certainly intend to continue to do so in order to help UNRWA to fulfil its mandate. We view that as a most important role in helping the people in the area not only now but until peace is truly established. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that that support will continue.
The substantial contributions which we have made via the European Community were some 44 million ecu during the previous calendar year, 1991. The UK's share of that amounted to about £6 million. Of that, £3 million was given particularly to assist those returning from Iraq and Kuwait as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Our normal contribution to the EC programme is about £3 million. In addition we contributed some £6 million directly to UNRWA during the previous financial year. We expect to match that figure this year.
During the debate many issues have arisen on which I should love to spend considerable time. However, it would be wrong to prevent others speaking in a later debate. I wish to mention the fact that UNRWA is funded almost entirely from voluntary contributions. That matter is much forgotten and underlines again the reason why we contribute to the core fund. There is no automatic UN funding of UNRWA: it is funded on a voluntary basis. It has been able to do work in areas where it would have been very difficult for non-governmental

245
organisations to be active without its support. Therefore, it is an enabler for other forms of assistance. That is one of the other reasons why I am so supportive of it.
Although UNRWA is frequently harassed—it sometimes has violence committed against it—it goes on. It is interesting that UNRWA scarcely merits a line in the international press when similar behaviour in other places often merits a large headline. We are dealing with a group of people who are trying to help not only as regards education and health but also in many other ways. They seek to give some training and an institutional base—although not of a permanent kind because it is in refugee camps—to people who are extremely badly affected.
We gather that there are now more than 2.5 million Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA, which is a few more than the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. However, there are major implications of the refugee numbers in those camps for they have a population growth rate of just over 3 per cent. per annum. The implications of that are clearly well known to this House from the debates and questions which I have sought to answer over recent weeks.
We know too that UNRWA would like to see more self-help within the area. I hope very much that the peace process on which we are engaged will be successful. I support fully the view expressed by a number of noble Lords in this debate that the key to resolving the difficult problems which UNRWA faces day to day is to tackle the political dispute. That is why we give our full backing to the present peace process. We believe that it offers a unique opportunity for achieving a comprehensive and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute.
I believe that it is not for those outside the region to dictate the terms of such a settlement, which to be effective must be freely negotiated and accepted among the parties involved. That is why we urge the leaders of all the parties to seize that opportunity for peace. It will only be with the competion of that peace process that UNRWA will be able to have formed a basis for the self-governing Palestinian authorities which will be created as a result of it. Certainly, we shall look to the future to discuss with UNRWA and with what we hope will be the incipient nongovernmental organisations among the Palestinians as to how donors can best aid in the future. There is no doubt that there are problems for those who wish to work in those areas because the instability of the political situation has made it extremely difficult for non-governmental organisations to implement the projects.
I refer here to the recent closure of the Gaza Strip, the imposition of the curfew and the closing of Bir Zeit University. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the impact of the Israeli actions on the economy of the Gaza Strip. We have been extremely conscious of that and our Consul-General from Jerusalem visited the Gaza Strip yesterday. He was able to confirm at first hand that the Israeli restrictions on movement have drastically reduced the number of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip who are still able to work in
246
Israel. Of the 30,000 or so who normally work in Israel, there are now only 2,000 to 3,000 at most who are able to do so.
With that information, we have taken up that matter with the Israeli authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me to do. We have asked them to abide by their responsibilities under the 4th Geneva Convention to remove those restrictions, which will add in ruinous terms to the falling economy of the Gaza Strip, on its inhabitants. As one who travelled to Jordan in September 1990 as refugees fled from Iraq and Kuwait back to Palestine, I can tell the House that those people in the Gaza Strip need no more hazards. They have been bashed once, twice and more times over. Therefore, we must put considerable emphasis on the peace process and a resolution of the problems of those in the camps in the area.
Many of those people returned to Palestine, having lost their homes and savings overnight as a result of the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait. By their work in Israel they had just started to rebuild their lives in a small way. If they are now denied the opportunity to work, their hopes will be dashed for a second time in a drastic way. I believe too that it will give UNRWA a bigger problem than ever before in seeking to help those people to help themselves, because once their confidence is destroyed it is very difficult to build it up again.
We have heard from your Lordships this evening the effect of the numbers on schools that UNRWA has run for so long. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, that those schools have been run with relatively few problems. We must consider that 7,000 returning children were added to the UNRWA schools in Jordan last year and 1,300 in Gaza. We know what the pressures are and we know all about the double banking in those schools; indeed sometimes it is triple banking, with three shifts per day being used in some schools, just as there are in Ethiopia. The children sit in overcrowded classrooms and are handicapped by insufficient resources. That in itself breeds the kind of instability about which the noble Lord was worried. Therefore, we must keep a balance between what it is possible for UNRWA to do with the resources it has and the lack of total freedom of activity from which it suffers in trying to do its work.
As the House will have realised, I keep in fairly close contact with what is going on in that region. Indeed, I was pleased to meet the new Commissioner General for a wide-ranging discussion in March when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsored him on a visit to the UK. My officials have even more contact than I have, but I am delighted with the way in which Mr. Ilker Türkmen has taken up his post. As a former Turkish Foreign Minister and Turkish Ambassador to France, he is a very wise and worldly person. I think that UNRWA is extremely fortunate to have him.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long but I believe that any further support that we can give to UNRWA is important. That is why we support a programme which UNICEF is seeking to carry out in support of UNRWA. It is a programme covering the

247
period 1992 to 1994 for Palestinian women and children in the Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. I mention that because much anxiety has been expressed this evening about the Lebanon. The programme is estimated to cost more than 6,450,000 dollars over three years. It will cover many aspects of health care, including immunisation, nutrition, maternal health care, the rational use of drugs, water supply and sanitation, with an emphasis on training and institutional development. We expect that the programme will be discussed and agreed by the executive board of UNICEF meeting now in New York.
There are other programmes. For instance, UNDP is providing further assistance to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza areas. That is augmented by cost sharing from other donors. In 1991 the total expenditure was estimated at some 11 million dollars. It concentrates on income generation and on social sectors such as health and education, as well as on infrastructure work on water supplies, sewage disposal and energy. Your Lordships can therefore see that a great deal is happening. European Community aid to the Occupied Territories goes in two ways—through UNRWA and through the financing of development projects, particularly through the co-financing of the non-governmental organisations, which do such superb work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will see from my remarks that we give support in many different ways. SPOT funds and DRU funds have gone to Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), Save the Children and Action Around Bethlehem for Children with Disabilities, which is the ABCD mentioned by the noble Lord. All those and many others—Oxfam, the Order of St. John and Co-operation for Development have received help from us to help those people who are in such difficulty.
We shall continue to do our best to help, but the best help will he a successful conclusion of the peace process. That is why, having accepted Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 as the basis for negotiations, we hope that the efforts, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to bring about a peace will succeed. There have been five rounds so far of bilaterals, and the five multilateral working groups met last in May. We believe that they should all meet again in the autumn, and the United Kingdom Government will be doing their best to support the peace efforts and bring them to a successful conclusion.
I have sought to answer most of the points raised during this interesting debate. I look forward to the day when UNRWA as an organisation no longer needs to exist—when the peoples of the Middle East can co-exist in peace and harmony. The events of the past year have given some grounds for hope that the goal may be achievable, but there is a long way to go. A great deal of patience is needed. Until then, UNRWA's important work must and will go on and the United Kingdom Government intend for our part to go on encouraging and supporting its vital tasks.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank most warmly all those who have taken part in this short debate. It is typical of your Lordships' House that one raises a subject and the next speaker turns out to have been partially responsible for the creation of the organisation that we are discussing. I was delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich drew our attention to the fact that Palestinian culture is alive and well, despite all the difficulties it has had to cope with. They both quite rightly mentioned the continuance of traditional Palestinian welcome and hospitality to strangers. I thought that was well put.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, seemed to be slightly inclined to say that it may have been better not to have had the debate. Perhaps I can remind him that on several occasions your Lordships House has successfully debated the Kurdish situation —a little further north in the Middle East. With that thought in mind, perhaps I can express my own admiration for what the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister managed to bring about in creating the safe havens in Kurdistan which have now been confirmed, and their value proved by the holding of democratic elections in that part of the world.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, regarding Palestinians becoming citizens of other countries was well answered by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Great honour is due to Jordan in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, gave us (as I was confident that she would) a most helpful and sympathetic response. I was encouraged to hear what she said about not only the Government's political support for UNRWA but also the fact that they are considering helping with current and future capital budgets.
I was glad to hear also about our contributions via the European Community and welcome what the noble Baroness said regarding our part in backing up the total Middle East peace process. I was delighted to note what she said about UNICEF, UNDP and British Aid to NGOs. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Education in Schools
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any evidence of the extent to which the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, relating to religious education in schools, are being fulfilled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask this Question, and warmly thank all noble Lords who have agreed to speak on a topic which I believe to be of fundamental importance. In opening the debate, it may be helpful

249
for me to put the Question in context by summarising the background to the legislation to which it refers and identifying some subsequent developments.
Your Lordships may recall that in February 1988 a debate in the House identified, a number of anxieties related to religious education—perhaps I may hereafter use the abbreviation "RE". I shall not repeat the detailed evidence. It is contained in Hansard of 26th February 1988. However, I shall highlight the main issues.
First, there was evidence of widespread ignorance among many children of basic knowledge of the Christian faith. Many surveys and media reports indicated just how ignorant many British school children were of the essentials of the Christian faith, which is our spiritual heritage. Secondly, there was evidence that many schools were flouting the provisions of the 1944 Education Act relating to the teaching of RE. The booklet, The Crisis in RE, by two teachers from Newcastle—John Burn and Colin Hart —gave statistical data on schools and LEAs which were failing to provide any RE at all.
Thirdly, there was evidence that in many schools, even where RE was being taught, it was being taught in ways which caused anxiety for a number of reasons. In some schools it was being used for partisan political indoctrination. In some it was being taught in a thematic multi-faith approach which adopted certain themes taking them out of context in ways which trivialised the complexities and coherence of major religions and did justice to none.
Finally, in a small but serious number of cases, RE was being used to introduce children to the occult, as indicated by a letter written by seven ILEA RE advisers to all head teachers in London schools warning them of the psychologically damaging effects of teaching about the occult.
Your Lordships may recall that it was later in 1988 that the Education Reform Bill came from another place with RE firmly established as a subject primus inter pares in the basic curriculum. However, there was no reference to the content of RE. In view of the anxieties previously identified, many noble Lords wished to ensure that young people learnt at least the essential elements of the Christian faith as part of our spiritual heritage and as a basis for understanding its contribution to our country's history, culture and social institutions.
Therefore in the early debates on this topic amendments which were essentially probing amendments were proposed which attempted to ensure the teaching of Christianity in RE while at the same time and for the first time specifying the rights of other faith communities to have provisions for RE which would respect the distinctiveness and coherence of their own faiths.
Support for the amendments was forthcoming from all sides of your Lordships' House and from those representing different faith communities. For example, not only was there strong support from many of your Lordships who were Christians, but also the then Chief Rabbi Lord Jacobovits spoke eloquently in support of those early amendments. Support was also
250
expressed outside your Lordships' House by members of the Moslem community. These supporters shared the same anxieties, especially over the developments in RE of that thematic, multi-faith approach, which they saw as trivialising their faiths in ways which might undermine all faith. For example, the Chief Rabbi criticised what he described as a "fruit cocktail" of world religions. The Imam of a major mosque led his people in prayer that the name of Christ should once again be revered in Britain's schools.
After these worries had been identified, the then Bishop of London, Dr. Leonard, undertook to propose amendments which would reflect the complexities of these issues. Now, nearly four years on, it is important to assess the extent to which the requirements of those amendments are being met; what has been achieved and what problems have been encountered.
Perhaps I may begin with developments which I believe are positive—that is to say, the effects of the Act on LEAs, curricular, resources, teachers and on test cases. First, it is good to note that a number of LEAs have produced new documents on teaching RE which actually specify teaching Christianity as well as other faiths. That may sound a rather strangely minimal achievement; but it is, in the state of things, a significant achievement. Examples include the Surrey handbook for RE and the Cornwall agreed syllabus.
Secondly, there have been developments in approaches to the curriculum which challenge the thematic, multi-faith or mish-mash approach. For example, the 1990 Newcastle agreed syllabus condemns this thematic approach as "educationally unsound" and because
"such syncretism is offensive to most religious groups".
The Schools Examinations and Assessment Council draft criteria for GCSE religious studies have completely dropped the thematic approach.
It is important to emphasise that these criticisms of the thematic multi-faith approach do not imply an attempt to hinder teaching about different faiths, but they stress that it should be done in ways which maintain the integrity of each faith. One of the problems which was predictable was the serious shortage of qualified teachers and resources. However, since the Act there has been an explosion of new resource books for RE with teaching material reflecting the spirit of the Act. At a more informal level there has been a proliferation of local resource groups to help hard-pressed teachers and to provide input for schools. These include groups with catchy acronyms such as CATS (Christians and Tyneside Schools); CIDS (Christians in Derbyshire Schools); CIBS (Christians in Birmingham Schools) and, perhaps not very felicitiously, CADS (Christians and Devonshire Schools). In many places, church leaders are being asked to visit schools who had never before been invited to cross their thresholds. Within weeks of the passage of the Act, an Anglican vicar told me how, for the first time in the ministry in that parish, he had been invited into the local comprehensive school. And that story is being repeated up and down the country with leaders of different faith communities.
Another beneficial result of the Act has been its influence on teachers. Previously, in many schools, RE had been an undervalued subject, sometimes explicitly denigrated. One LEA multi-cultural adviser described how heads of some schools imposed teaching RE as a punishment on their least-liked staff. He commented that some of these teachers went into classes using four-letter words and teaching in ways which did less than justice to the subject. That adviser was not a Christian, but belonged to another faith. Yet he found it offensive to hear the name of Christ profaned.
Now RE has a recognised place and many teachers describe a return of confidence. Also, whereas previously in some schools the teaching of Christianity was not allowed, its place in the curriculum is now more readily assured. The Act has challenged head teachers who had allowed RE to disappear completely from the timetable.
Finally, on the positive side, there have been test cases which have upheld the spirit of the Act. For example, in Newcastle, in 1990, parents and teachers were disturbed by the proposed RE syllabus as it contained very little Christian teaching. Only two modules out of 24 contained reference to the Christian faith. They were also worried by what they saw as unhelpful approaches blurring distinctions between faiths. They therefore mobilised pressure, with a petition to the mayor, and the syllabus was changed to bring it more in line with the Act.
Nearby, in Gateshead, the RE adviser proposed a syllabus which required pupils to design their own religion; to rewrite the Ten Commandments; to celebrate Buddhist festivals at the age of five and to study feminist interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Under the provisions of the Act, the syllabus conference rejected these proposals which have since been rewritten several times.
It is too early to identify the effects of changes in the law on pupils. Suffice it to say that there is still evidence of widespread ignorance about the essentials of the Christian faith among young adults who passed through the education system under the old dispensation. In 1991 a MORI survey found that for the 18–24 age group, 57 per cent. could not say what happened on Good Friday and 62 per cent. could not identify Pontius Pilate, although, according to another MORI poll in 1989, between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the population regarded themselves as Christians; with only 3 per cent. adhering to other faiths and 4 per cent. identified as atheists.
I now wish briefly to identify four problem areas: resources and competition for scarce resources; experiences of other faith communities; attempts to undermine the spirit of the Act and the onus of responsibility laid on parents. First, the requirements to teach RE have increased competition for scarce resources; financially; in terms of teachers' time, energy and expertise; and in competition on the timetable for the demanding range of subjects to be covered in the national curriculum.
It may be some of these problems which lie behind some disturbing aspects of the Senior Chief Inspector for Schools report for 1991. For example, it was reported that RE was taught superficially in many
252
primary schools and in some not taught explicitly. For 14 to 16 year-old pupils in secondary schools the entitlement to RE was often not being met. Only one in three of the schools inspected timetabled RE under its own name at Key Stage 4.
Secondly, one of the objectives in the formulation of the amendments was the protection of the rights of non-Christian faith communities. That is why the earlier versions of the amendments specified their rights to RE in accordance with their own religious traditions. However, some faith communities have experienced difficulties. For example, representations on behalf of the Muslim Education Co-ordinating Council indicate problems in obtaining information and even in obtaining the annual SACRE reports. Mr. Mustafa, speaking on their behalf, also comments on the unhelpful response encountered from many secular-orientated LEAs and from some school governors. In view of these difficulties, Mr. Mustafa, speaking for the MECC, advocates a monitoring department within the DoE.
Another problem has been a number of systematic attempts by representatives of the RE establishment to interpret the Act in favour of the thematic multi-faith approach which the amendments were designed to discourage. For example, Professor John Hull of Birmingham University has written two booklets entitled The Act Unpacked and Mishmash, which run counter to the intentions and spirit of the debates underpinning the provisions, endorsing instead the previous multi-faith approaches. I quote from the British Journal of Religious Education, Autumn 1989:
"A careful reading of Hansard makes clear that some of these people in the House of Lords did indeed think that they were changing RE practice rather than confirming it".
If that were the case, many of the hours spent by your Lordships in proposing the amendments were wasted. But, happily, there have been real changes, as outlined in my earlier words. However, a battle is now being waged in the educational world and those who initiated the kinds of developments which originally caused anxieties to your Lordships are still proposing their viewpoint. Hence there is a need for evaluation of these developments.
Finally, there is the problem as regards the onus placed on parents. My noble friend Lord Elton (who regrets that he is unable to be here tonight) wrote to my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State in February of this year to draw his attention to the agreed syllabus for RE for Oldham. In doing so, he referred to a letter from the DES to all chief education officers, setting out criteria for compliance of agreed syllabuses with Section 8(3) of the Act. It required the syllabuses to give sufficient guidance to readers and thus to teachers as to what Christian traditions, learning, teachings and festivals would be taught and as to what elements of the other faiths that are represented in Great Britain would be taught. Far from specifying these, the Oldham syllabus makes a virtue of specifying none, as can be seen from pages 12 and 34.
As your Lordships who were present on 13th February may recollect, my noble friend Lord Elton was told by my noble friend Lady Denton that his

253
complaint was insufficient for the syllabus to be reviewed. She said that it was up to the parents in Oldham to complain. However, that puts an intolerable burden on parents. It is often difficult for them to ascertain what has happened. Even if they are unhappy, it is often invidious for them to have to complain as their children may suffer repercussions if they do so. I know because I did complain—and my children suffered. There are not many parents who are either in the same position as or who are as brave and determined as Mrs. Bell of Ealing who ran the whole gamut of the complaints procedures at great personal cost. And why should parents have to pay such a high price for the law to be fulfilled? Surely, there should be some onus on LEAs to fulfil the requirements of the law, and on the Government to ensure that they do so.
In conclusion, I know that there are many people of different faiths and convictions up and down the country who are deeply worried about these issues. Many were heartened by the commitment of my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State for Education to the need to ensure that education must be based on spiritual and moral values. A sound understanding of our spiritual heritage is a prerequisite for such an education. Unless we give our young people this, we are betraying our most fundamental responsibility to them. I fear that we have already betrayed many of them. However, I also believe that much has been accomplished since the passage of the 1988 Act towards remedying this deplorable situation. There is, however, still much to be done and many anxieties remain. It is in the light of those anxieties and the lack of readily available information that I put this Question to the Government and eagerly await the reply of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
7.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should first like to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for tabling this Unstarred Question on this highly important matter. I congratulate her also on introducing it in such a sensitive and clear fashion. I should also like to offer an apology on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who is the chairman of the General Synod Board of Education and successor in that post to the former Bishop of London, Dr. Graham Leonard. The right reverend Prelate has to be present at a residential meeting of the House of Bishops this week. Although he cannot take responsibility for my words, I have consulted him and his advisers in preparation for this debate.
The Education Reform Act 1988 required the teaching of religious education in all schools as part of the basic curriculum although not as part of the national curriculum. The curriculum content is determined locally. Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education—SACREs—became mandatory in each authority, having the responsibility for advising the authorities on matters relating to religious education. A substantial number of the places on the SACREs were given to the Church of
254
England, which is one of the four groups represented on them. The Church of England therefore has a responsibility for the performance of the SACREs. The provisions of the Act laid obligations on local authorities and schools, as well as providing opportunities. As I understand it, the purpose of this Question is to discover the extent to which those obligations are being met.
I should like to make three general points first before coming to my more specific points. My first general point is that there is no division of understanding on this matter between Christians and those of other faiths. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for making that point so clearly. There is much evidence that those of other faiths wish for educational institutions that are aware of the religious dimension to life and which are prepared to provide religious teaching. Members of other faiths sometimes deliberately choose such schools because they seek those features.
There is no intention in the Education Reform Act to promote division between those of different faiths. Indeed, the debates in your Lordships' House have made particular reference to the tolerance, understanding and respect that is due from members of one faith to members of another. The responsibilities of the churches, perhaps of the Church of England especially because it is the national church, include not only ensuring that RE is a subject on the timetable which is given adequate time and resources and proper treatment, but also expressing a concern for the integrity of the faith of those who are not Christians and for the teaching of their traditions with accuracy and sensitivity.
Secondly, educational method in my view—and I speak with some experience of teaching at university level—requires that religious studies as a subject pays attention to the coherence of each faith. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has also made this point. She referred to a member of what I call broadly the "Birmingham group". I should like to refer to another member of that group, Professor John Hick, who is an influential name in this field. His thesis that all religions circle around the one reality of God seems to some of us inadequate to an understanding of the religions of the world, not least because it is now generally agreed that there is no common core to all religious teaching and practice. Each religious tradition stands on its own as a way of interpreting human life and human behaviour in the light of a reality that is beyond the observable world.
However, the language, concepts and teachings of the religious traditions differ profoundly. This is clearly an academic discussion but it has repercussions upon our debate tonight. I am glad that that understanding was the one that prevailed in your Lordships' discussions on the legislation. It is clear once again that for a variety of religious traditions there is a need to stand together in this understanding. I accept that it is easier to teach abstract and conceptual thought at the university or secondary level than at the primary level. I have no experience of primary teaching, but it seems to me that we must now accept that as a general principle.

255
Thirdly, religious education is not to be confused with religious instruction and nurture. The task of the school is not the same as the task of church, synagogue, mosque, temple or gurudwara. In my view, the school's task is to make youngsters aware of the religious dimension to life and to give them a knowledge of the basic teachings of their own traditions and of a limited number of others. Perhaps I may suggest that two traditions are as much as most youngsters can cope with. I look with some dismay at the Bradford syllabus which seems to require the teaching of six traditions, all to be given equal time. I cannot believe that youngsters can absorb that amount.
I believe that schools have the task of presenting religion as a living option. I remember going to my professor when I was teaching at Manchester University and saying that I intended returning to parochial work in the Church of England. He was astonished that anyone could take seriously religious commitment as formative of belief and behaviour today. It is the task of particular religious traditions to nurture people, young and old, in faith. It is the task of schools to present religion as a way of life in today's world, consonant with the other subjects and activities that are part of a school's existence. The tasks of schools and religious institutions should not be confused.
The Education Reform Act has given opportunities to schools, local authorities, churches and other religious bodies. I know that in some cases those opportunities have been taken, but in other cases they have not. In my own diocese three appointments in religious education have been made at diocesan level as a response to the Act. That has happened at a time of recession when posts are under great scrutiny. The first task of those who hold the appointments is to assist church-aided schools, but they are also available as a resource for governors and staff at county schools. They provide a small, experienced group for membership of SACREs. Again, in my own diocese, the authority in Leeds has produced a new syllabus. For that purpose it seconded an experienced woman teacher who happened also to be the chairman of my readers hoard. Some regions have had similar experiences, but the experience of yet other regions is quite different.
The question that remains is: how far are the syllabuses in accord with the spirit of the Act? As we are discovering, some syllabuses are apparently not in accord with it. Another question is: how far are schools accepting the responsibilities that have been laid on them by the Act? The answer to that question is clearly mixed.
The 1992 report of the National Curriculum Council analysed the submissions from 93 of the SACREs. It makes one ask what was happening in the 27 SACREs that did not submit reports. Of the 93 which submitted a report 40 have produced or are producing new agreed syllabi. But the report indicates that some schools were not meeting the statutory requirement to provide RE for all pupils. That is particularly true in the primary schools and is borne out by anecdotal evidence. One of my clergy was
256
telling me yesterday that he is frequently at his local county primary school, asking the head what proportion of time and what amount of resources is allocated to RE. He does not receive satisfactory answers. Directors of education are recommending that 5 per cent. of teaching time should now be given to the subject. That contrasts with some 2.5 per cent. in 1988 in secondary schools and 3 per cent. in 1984.
I should like to draw attention to a number of specific concerns. The first is the shortage of RE teachers. Perhaps of particular concern in this area is the large number of teachers—nearly 7,000—who have post A-level RE qualifications but who are no longer teaching the subject. Those of us who are in and out of schools know of the shortage of teachers in this field. Why are so many teachers who are qualified no longer teaching the subject? Have they been moved to the teaching of other subjects? It will be difficult to recover their experience for RE teaching, and yet it is equally difficult to encourage fresh teachers to enter this field.
The department suggests that there is no shortage of such teachers. It does so on the grounds that advertised posts are being filled. But the question remains: what about those schools which are not advertising posts and which are not teaching the subject properly? Does not shortage of teachers remain one of the great obstacles to the fulfilment of the aims of the Act?
I believe that the changes in the funding of schools and the redeployment of advisory teams bode ill for the future of RE. The support for teachers at all levels will tend to disappear and it will be left to individual schools to seek help where they can. There is a fragmentation of support at a time when coherence is needed. That is especially so for RE as in many schools it is regarded as a subject of less importance than other subjects. The Church has a major input here through the work of the education advisers, but clearly they cannot take the place of local authority advisers and undertake the work which was formerly undertaken by local authority employees.
I believe that the weakening of local education authorities will not help the work of SACREs because SACREs are advisory to these bodies and rely on them for funding. It is through the LEA that in practice SACREs have the ability to reach all schools systematically. They do not approach schools individually but through the LEA. The fragmentation of the schools inspectorate will make it more difficult to have an in-depth understanding of the state of RE, although it is true that, because of the existence of SACREs, RE may be less badly affected than some other subjects. It might be appropriate to require schools which are not satisfactorily assessed on RE at their three-yearly inspections to submit a timetabled plan for improvement.
Finally, among these specific matters, I believe I am right in saying that the National Curriculum Council now has a professional officer dealing with RE. We may hope that it will offer more direct guidelines on RE and especially on the part that RE can play in integrated courses. The National Curriculum Council could helpfully add to its existing publications a

257
document which lays out clearly the significance of RE in the basic curriculum and the importance of the spiritual, moral and cultural attitudes within the schools as a whole. I have already referred to the importance of that.
The uneven response to the requirements of the Act for the teaching of RE is a cause for concern. I believe there to have been an improvement since the Act became law, but clearly there is room for further improvement. Any information that the Government have on this matter will clearly be a stimulus to further work, and I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to give us some sense of satisfaction for work achieved but also encouragement for work still to be done.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in common with all those who have spoken or who are going to speak I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us the opportunity to assess the consequences of the legislation we passed four years ago with such high hopes. I have nostalgic memories of that passage of arms. I note that one of my speeches was timed at seven minutes past six o'clock in the morning, a rare occasion of an all night sitting. I remember beginning,
"comes the dawn … and with it the dawn chorus [of amendments]".—[Official Report, 28/6/88; col. 1533.]
We had high hopes. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said:
"What has been achieved is historic. There is now explicit recognition on the face of the Bill of the expectations that religious education and worship should, in the main, be Christian".—[Official Report, 7/7/88; col. 434.]
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that:
"an effort which started as a Christian denominational effort has finished up as an inter-faith effort to secure the individuality and respect of all religions".—[Official Report, 7/7/88; col. 436.]
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said that the Bill would be the best thing this government had done and one of the best things any government had ever done in this century. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London called it a truly historic new Bill.
There was a note of warning from the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. Describing his past experiences as Secretary of State, he said:
"I was shocked—indeed, horrified—to discover that the majority of teachers were opposed to the teaching of religion in schools. I found whole schools where not a single teacher was prepared to teach religion".—[Official Report, 7/7/88; col. 439.]
He then said—I paraphrase slightly—that we cannot work out a formula that will have any effect on the life of our children unless we have teachers who are willing, able and prepared to teach this subject.
Where can we find them other than through the Church—the Church militant; militant to perpetuate the faith and morals that the Christian religion has established in past ages and so secure their transmission to the future. This matter is, from the administrative point of view, in the hands of local government, with central government interfering only minimally.
Local government is a device for exercising delegated authority on local matters where local
258
knowledge is critical. The alternative would be some kind of command structure where orders came from the top in total ignorance of what was going on at the bottom. In so far as local government discharges its remit well, it is to be praised. However, in the national party political sense, it is largely bogus. What power in any kind of national controversy has local government over national matters such as foreign policy? One cannot have a local government foreign policy. One cannot have local government running defence, the management of the economy, and so on. It has absolutely no power over any of these matters which are so frequently debated on party political lines. But its political and ideological ambience is a wonderful substrate in which maggots can burrow holes to increase their sense of self importance—outdated petty Fabian secularists, and the like. Religious education is one of its prime targets. I shall not pursue the subject in detail, because I am sure that other speakers know much more about it than I do. If noble Lords need convincing, they need only listen to other speakers. The point I wish to emphasise is the need for the established Churches—I say that in the plural meaning Anglican, Roman Catholic, Non-Conformist, Baptists, and so on—to undo the work of the maggots, to conceive a plan for doing so and then summon the will to go in and fight the good fight.
People's religion is, for the most part, learnt at their mother's or grandmother's knee. They very rarely change their basic faith. If parents are secularists, or indifferent to any religion whatever, their children are unlikely to acquire any deep feelings on the subject. But it is deep feeling that we need for the sake of ourselves, our children and society. We must live in the decent sort of ambience which only religion can provide. That is why I turn to my own faith, personified tonight by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, to take command and to organise the battle in which I and others like myself can serve as foot soldiers. Debates in Parliament will never be transferred into action without external leadership, and only the Church can provide that in this case.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to my noble friend Lady Cox on the way in which she introduced the debate. With the immense amount of work that she has undertaken in the Far East and south of the Soviet empire, it is amazing that she finds time to come back to talk to us. I should also like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon on the very constructive way that he dealt with the subject. He made suggestions to which I hope my noble friend will respond seriously.
I should like to concentrate on the need to speed up the implementation of religious teaching in our schools. When I first came into Parliament I recall that Rab Butler was still very proud of the coalition government Education Act of 1944 which he led through and which provided for the teaching of education in our schools. He always described it as his finest hour. Indeed, I remember him speaking in this House right at the end of his life and saying that it was

259
the most memorable thing that he had done. Quite rightly, that Act was refreshed, brought forward and modernised in the Education Reform Act of 1988.
It is appropriate that four years later we should begin to see what is happening as a result of what we did at that time. Sadly, the Government's faith in LEAs (of which there are 117) does not seem to me and to many others to have been fulfilled as they had hoped. Our grandchildren (of which we have 13) are bright, active—sometimes too active—healthy, intelligent and often very lovable but their religious education seems to me to be fragmented, sometimes muddled and all too often neglected. I read a recent survey which I found to be alarming. It showed that over half the people in the 18 to 24 age bracket had no idea why we celebrate Good Friday. Moreover, it also revealed that nearly two-thirds in the same age group had no idea who Pontius Pilate was.
Four years is a long time. I believe that we should from time to time, and from now on, refresh our knowledge of what is happening. I gain my information from the director of the Christian Institute, Colin Hart. He succeeded, with valiant dedication to the subject, in finding only 15 LEAs out of the 117 that have actually brought forward a new syllabus which incorporates religious teaching. Why are some of them so abjectly slow in bringing it forward? I am afraid that I have to say that the majority of LEAs give the highest priority to politics. That is certainly so when elections are coming about. Some of their political affiliations are very Left of centre. There are many others which give absolutely negative priority to religious teaching. That is no way to attract the best teachers to a subject.
An extreme example was the work of ILEA during its existence, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—if I may have her attention for a moment —was the deputy education officer. Therefore she was very much involved in what it was doing. Many people are still abiding by the syllabuses which were worked out under that very Left-wing organisation. For example, there are 12 inner-London boroughs. Of those, only Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea have brought forward a revised syllabus which includes the recommendations in the 1988 Act. All the rest are still clinging to a now very old system devised by the very Left of centre. In fact, from the information that I have read, the National Union of Teachers was so far to the Left that even the communists did not have the chance of being elected. It was the Trotskyists and people even further to the Left who were dominating all the offices in that body.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as a former officer of the ILEA I object to that suggestion; I am not a Trotskyist and I am not a communist. It is patent nonsense to suggest that the officers of the Inner London Education Authority had any of those political persuasions.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if the noble Baroness reads in Hansard what I said, she will see that not for a moment did I suggest that she was. The information came out at the time when the National Union of
260
Teachers was led by the far Left. I hope that it has put matters right since. It is a very powerful body. Clearly ILEA was much in sympathy with a great deal of that. The noble Baroness happened to be the appointed education officer of ILEA. I found the information in Dod; I am not inventing it. I can give her pamphlets and other information which she may care to read. However, I am sorry that I cannot accept her correction. I am sure that she had some responsibility in the area.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said, LEAs are responsible for many of the appointments. The SACREs have to report through the LEAs. They make the appointment of religious advisers. Some of those religious advisers are good. Indeed, I know of one in the Birmingham area who is quite exceptional. He has been backed up by the LEA in the area. It has supplied him with resources worth £50,000 to help him carry out the obligations under the Act. That is a good sign. However, some of the religious advisers do not suffer from an excess of enthusiasm for the teaching of Christianity. I rather wish they did, because that is their task.
Lack of qualified teachers is one of the excuses that has been given. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made that point. But what has happened to the nearly 7,000 fully qualified teachers? The answer is that there is no enthusiasm and not much chance of promotion up the religious ladder. Therefore, they have moved on to other areas. I am afraid that that again reflects the lack of enthusiasm for the teaching of religion. However, I still think—and I am sure my noble friend will agree—that there are many people, especially among parents, who are very well qualified to teach young children. I hope that the Church, local authorities and head teachers will make use of them and not feel that this is in competition. The aim is to carry out what is the law now. Assistance can come from all sorts of people and particularly of course from local vicars.
I have been talking to a friend who works in Kensington and Chelsea as a councillor and also as a school governor. He says that it was a sad occasion a year or two ago when he visited one of the primary schools during instruction on prayer to find that little children were being told to put their hands together and think of nice things. That was all the instruction they were given. I am glad to say that since that time a padre has come in from the local church and the children are now indoctrinated in the beliefs of Christ and the singing of "Onward Christian Soldiers", which I am sure they will sing with vigour and enthusiasm. So this can be put right. I believe that too many excuses are made and perhaps accepted for not putting it right.
On 13th February I raised the matter with the department and many others joined in. The department's response was, "This is the job of parents". I cannot believe that that advice could come from any parent who has tried to send a child to a local school. To blow the whistle when one's children are doing exams which are being marked—and so much now is determined by the opinion of the school and not by independent examiners—raises the danger

261
of repercussions against the children, who may also have younger brothers and sisters following on in the same school. Why should parents risk the future of their children? It is not the task of parents, gutsy as they may be. My noble friend mentioned the school parent governor, Mrs. Bell. In that case she stuck to her guns, and goodness knows what it cost her in time and money to go on. But it still took two years for the local education authority to take any notice of what she was saying; and within that two years the DES actually delayed matters by a further year. Gutsy she was; but we cannot always rely on gutsy parent governors of that sort.
We must ask the Minister—who has reserve powers, and has always had reserve powers—to use those reserve powers when clearly procrastination is becoming almost a profession in too many areas. The department should ask the new inspectorate to provide regular progress reports on what is happening in the production of new syllabuses. It is unsatisfactory that after four years only 15 LEAs out of 117 have brought forward a new syllabus, although we were told by the right reverend Prelate that a further 40 were being considered. I am glad that they are being considered, but I hope that that action can be speeded up.
There must be an education Bill coming along. There always is. So I ask my noble friend seriously to consider writing into the Bill that there should be positive progress in the introduction of new curricula to match the national curriculum and that progress reports should be provided to Parliament so that we know that some progress is being made. I say most earnestly that we are failing to do what Parliament intended should be done. People are purposefully breaking the law. We must ask for progress reports, and I think we should build into some future Act a timetable which would show what progress ought to be made. Then we can try to get the moral and spiritual teaching back into our schools which we all so earnestly want.
8.13 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this debate. I should certainly like to echo what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has just said to the effect that regular reports should be submitted to my noble friend the Minister from the inspectors about how the provisions of the 1988 Act are being implemented.
I firmly believe that religious education should be determined and a syllabus prepared at LEA level. The LEA can then take account of local situations. On the other hand, this gives the LEA a great responsibility. I particularly want to talk about its responsibility in fulfilling Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Under that provision the RE syllabus should,
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".
A MORI poll in 1991 stated that 84.5 per cent. of the nation had a form of allegiance to the Christian
262
faith. That is a very high proportion. I believe that all polls and surveys over the past five years have shown that between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the population would lay claim to some form of Christian faith. I am not saying—unfortunately, for the right reverend Prelate—that that proportion of the nation goes to the Church of England or even all the other Christian churches put together, but they would claim to be Christian in a sense. We need to compare the figure of 84.5 per cent. with the representatives of other faiths. The MORI poll found that the aggregate of Moslem, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist was less than 3 per cent. That is the discrepancy about which we are talking.
For the sake of argument, if I was living in, say, Saudi Arabia, a Moslem country, and my children were being educated in that country, I would expect them to be taught the facts of the Moslem faith at school. I would think it a very good thing for them to learn that. The right reverend Prelate brought out the fact that the teaching of the Christian faith by representatives of the other faiths is welcome, and I would welcome the converse in the other situation. I would not welcome it if the Moslems were proselytizing my Christian children. Again, the right reverend Prelate brought out the fact that religious education in no sense does that and never should. It is teaching the facts about the Christian faith.
Section 8(3) of the Act states that the religious education should,
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions are in the main Christian".
It does not say simply that the syllabus should provide teaching that is in the main Christian. That is an important difference. If it was the latter, then it would simply mean that the teaching should be, say, over 50 per cent. Christian. Law cases have held that the words "mainly", "in the main" or whatever mean more than 50 per cent. But that is not what the Act states. The Act states that it should "reflect" the fact that in the main the tradition in England is Christian. As I see it, that means that the amount of teaching should reflect the proportion of the population, so that, say, 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the teaching should be Christian. That is the view of the Department of Education and Science in its guidance letter of 1991 which has already been referred to. It states:
"The fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian would in most cases be properly reflected by devoting most attention to Christianity".
The Cornwall syllabus states:
"Christianity is the religion to be studied in the greater detail … Christianity will occupy the largest amount of time".
It is equally important that the remaining 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the time spent on religious education should cover other religions. Again, I should like to endorse what has already been said by some noble Lords who quoted the advice of the Church of England General Synod Board of Education. It stated:
"Experience has shown that two, or at the very most three, religious systems can be studied at any worthwhile depth within the constraints of the normal time provision for RE, even at its most generous".

263
I believe that that is good advice. To try to study six separate religions would be self-defeating.
The local LEA seems to be admirably placed to decide which other religions are most appropriate in the local situation in the light of who are the residents. Some LEAs would no doubt emphasise the Moslem faith, others much more the Jewish faith, and so on, as may he most appropriate. I hope that the LEAs are doing that effectively.
It is up to the general public to ensure that the syllabus is within the law. Several of your Lordships commented upon the difficulties that parents face. The Ealing case was quoted. It took two years for the chain of events to be completed and for the Department of Education properly to answer the complaint. It is up to the parents to go through the complaints procedure: to the school, the LEA and finally the DoE. I suggest for the consideration of the right reverend Prelate that Church education advisers could help, bearing in mind the large role in education played by the Church of England.
Those people who are interested in ensuring that the law is being properly fulfilled by the LEA could play a role. That does not detract in any way from what I said at the outset —that I hope that my noble friend the Minister will obtain regular reports from HMI on how Section 8(3) is being fulfilled.
I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lady Cox for missing her opening remarks. It was due to the speed at which the earlier debates went through. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the extent to which she is satisfied that the LEA syllabuses and practice devote most of their attention to Christianity.
8.22 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I join with noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Not for the first time, she has put the House in her debt. Her service to our country is notable, and her service to the House, as I have found during the nine years that I have been here, is exceptional. I consider it a great privilege to join in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that four years is a long time. There are two periods in one's life when four years is exceptionally long. It is long when one reaches my age, when one looks forward with trepidation; and when one is very young, four years is very long. But four years has elapsed in the life of a generation, and it is right and proper that the High Court of Parliament should pause and, in the calm and quiet of your Lordships' House ask itself, "Have our wishes, as expressed four years ago in both Houses, been fulfilled"?
A welcome interest in education literature has been shown by publishers so that head teachers today (four years on) have a far greater variety of literature to help them with scripture lessons. In many parts of the country religious education teachers have assumed a higher profile during the past four years. Even local standing advisory councils on religious education have given evidence that in some parts of the country religious education is taking on a new life.
264
Those advisory bodies are of great significance. They are not unimportant. They advise the LEA on school worship and on the implementation of the agreed religious education syllabus. A weakness that has become apparent is that those advisory councils depend upon the LEA for their appointment and funding. The Church of England and teachers are represented, but it is possible for the local authority to have a majority of members and end up advising itself. That majority can smother the voices of the independent members.
There is much to be said for the DoE reconsidering giving greater independence to the standing advisory councils to ensure that the local authorities cannot smother them by having an overwhelming majority of members on them. The decision becomes a political not a religious one. I understand that religious education advisers often have their eyes on the attitude of their employers (the local authority) rather than Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act, a point already referred to by noble Lords. HMIs need to be more active to ensure that religious education syllabuses conform to the wishes of Parliament as expressed in the 1988 Act.
Religious education is not less important than the teaching of maths, geography, French or any other subject. To people who support the idea that our children have the right to know about their heritage, religious education is of the utmost significance. I was greatly encouraged by the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday when he said that where local authorities fail in their duties the Government will intervene. He was talking about the inner cities. The Opposition asked where the money was to come from. The Government also have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities fulfil their duties with regard to the teaching of religious education in our schools.
In 1991, as has been said, the Chief Inspector of Schools expressed his anxiety about the inadequacy of religious education in our primary schools. As several noble Lords have said, he referred to the fact that only one secondary school in three had religious education in the timetable. Are there any statistics indicating that there has been a change in those figures since the passing of the Act? Will the Minister also tell us what action her department has taken in connection with teacher training colleges since the passing of the Act? Has a circular been issued to teacher training colleges reminding them of the need to pay special attention to preparing teachers to teach religious education adequately?
If the department has not sent out a circular, will it consider doing so? Teacher training establishments are of the first importance in this regard. Secularists who do not want religious instruction given have not been slow in using the multi-faith argument to undermine all religious faiths. But Christian education is a solemn obligation. I respect the diligence with which both the Moslems and the Jewish people recognise the importance of training their young in the tenets of their faith. If we go to a Moslem country, we do not find the people apologising for putting their own faith forward in the schools.

265
We are a Christian land; it is our heritage. I believe that we have a responsibility to see that tomorrow's world in these islands enjoys the same heritage that we ourselves received. We owe it to our children and I believe that we owe it to our Lord.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me saying a personal word. It was because of my Christian faith that I joined the Labour Party. I grew up a Christian Socialist and I have never made any bones about it to anyone. It has helped to shape the community where I grew up and I hope and pray that the Labour Benches will encourage the teaching of religion, of the Christian faith, of Christian knowledge in our schools. It is an essential part which has shaped the movement and the view of those on the Labour Benches. Morgan Phillips was right when he said that the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than to Marxism. That is why I could not bear it when I saw solid blocks of teachers who were unsympathetic—to put it kindly —to the teaching of any faith. I was a teacher; it is part of my life. I taught for nearly 14 years before I came to Parliament—to the other place. I know that I am in debt to my Christian teachers. I was a scripture teacher and I have tried to pass that teaching on to the generation that I was allowed to influence.
I have one further question for the Minister. Will the Department of Education and Science ensure that the same public access is given to meetings of standing advisory councils on religious education as is given to committees of local authorities? Many of these advisory councils work in complete secrecy. Their members are sworn to secrecy. Her Majesty's Government are the ultimate guardians of our Christian heritage. My noble friend Lord Halsbury indicated to me during the debate that he thought it was a good idea that when parents wished to object, they should speak to their priests who would speak to the bishop who would speak to the Minister. I advise them also to speak to their MP and councillor and to make sure that when elections take place people are elected who are sympathetic to the rights of parents who wish their children to have Christian instruction.
I am sorry that my voice does not improve, although I go on hoping. I conclude by saying that I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the subject to which I hope we shall return time and again. I know the Secretary of State for Education and Science, John Patten, and I believe that he will keep a careful eye on the subject. I am satisfied that religious education has a friend in high places and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will ensure that her colleague, the Minister, will receive the message that we trust that he will ensure that the inspectors of schools who report to him will treat the matter with urgency.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for raising this important, indeed vital, subject. I use the word "vital" advisedly because the whole future spiritual dimensions of our children's lives are being considered. What is taught now to our children is what they will carry forward throughout their lives. Ultimately it will
266
carry on to their children. We are discussing the spiritual future of our nation. It is not something to be thrown away wantonly, ill-advisedly or without due consideration of all that it has meant for Great Britain.
My noble friend Lord Brentford is more up to date than I am with his 1991 MORI poll. However, according to a MORI poll held in February/March 1989, 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the population regard themselves as Christians, even if they are not regular church attenders. Four per cent. are atheists and fewer than 3 per cent. are of non-Christian faiths. Even allowing for our current disbelief in poll findings, they are never more than about 10 per cent. out in their swing. While that could diminish the figure for atheists and non-Christian faiths to an even smaller percentage, it could never raise them to anything other than a small overall minority. We remain, as we have been since the days of Saint Augustine, angels, or at least a Christian country.
This Christian tradition and majority must therefore be represented by a lion's share of any religious education taught in our schools. There are mice and rats gnawing away at the poor lion's share; some of them and their machinations have been exposed by my noble friend Lady Cox. There is the Ealing syllabus, bravely and successfully challenged by the gallant Mrs. Denise Bell, an elected parent-governor. In it there was no requirement to teach any specific aspects of Christianity. The Oldham, Bolton and Newham syllabi, published subsequently, ran it close. There is the Newcastle syllabus, written by the council's religious education adviser, in which parents discovered to their horror that only one-twelfth of the religious education made any specific reference to the Christian faith. As a result, 1,300 residents petitioned the Lord Mayor for changes to be made.
There is the Gateshead syllabus, encouraging pupils to design their own religion and to rewrite the Ten Commandments. Later it had to be rewritten and modified several times. Having passed the. Education Reform Act 1988, with its provisions for religious education in schools, we must see that the Act is not abused.
Yesterday I took a party of Indian ladies round our House. We toured the Peers' Lobby, the Chamber, the Prince's Chamber and went into the Royal Gallery and the Robing Room. There they were much impressed with the large paintings representing the virtues of the knights of King Arthur's Round Table: generosity, hospitality and mercy, never to be against ladies (that is one I like almost the best), courtesy and, dominating them all, religion, with Sir Galahad and his company beholding a vision of the Holy Grail. Let us all keep that vision in our hearts and try to pass it on to those who will be the future, and one day the past, of our country.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, last week your Lordships were determined to protect the position of the arts in our schools. Your Lordships also raised questions about aspects of the national curriculum

267
orders for science which touch on teaching about the HIV/AIDS virus to children aged 11 to 14. In both those important debates your Lordships were concerned with spiritual and moral values. It is therefore not only logical but also of the greatest importance that the subject of religious education should be raised today.
Like everyone else who is speaking in this debate today, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating the debate this evening, for it strikes at the very heart of education in our schools. When one reads the 1988 Education Reform Act it all seems so cut and dried and so clear. Religious education is required in the basic curriculum and every pupil shall attend an act of collective worship every day.
There are naturally exceptions. I have never known a school rule to which there is not an exception. However, those exceptions and special requirements are clearly listed and supplementary and consequential provisions are set out. If only it were in practice as simple as it seems on the printed page. Religious education lessons are likely to be scheduled once or at most twice a week. I have just been working out—I only hope my mathematics is up to it—that 5 per cent. of 35 teaching periods per week equals 1.75 lessons per week.
It is written into the Education Reform Act that the provision shall be broadly Christian in character. However, in such a limited time allowance one can only hope to teach factual Bible stories, both Old and New Testament, and present the historical background of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and heritage of this country. That is at least something. I remember well a father of one of my pupils at St. Paul's once said to me very firmly that as a committed atheist he insisted that I teach and read the Bible—in the Authorised Version, of course—to his daughter.
But even in the case of factual lessons one needs an able, well-trained, committed teacher who can catch the interest of the class if the pupils are to learn what is being taught. The question of daily collective worship is much more difficult. The purpose of the assembly, whether in a large or a small group, is surely to provide a forum for listening to the opinions of others in the hope that the children and teenagers in that assembly will start thinking for themselves about questions of right and wrong, the question of whether there is a God and even why it is wrong to steal or to tell lies. From that there could eventually grow a desire to know more about faith and religion.
The best school assemblies are a corporate experience, a shared activity, or even passivity involving the pupils just sitting quietly. I know how much even singing a hymn can help to create a positive atmosphere. That is a lesson the Salvation Army taught us long ago. Sometimes, something that is said or something that is read will spark a flicker of interest which just could lead to a basic form of ethical inquiry and then to that religious dimension of which the right reverend Prelate spoke so eloquently.
However, it seems to me that it is simply not possible for government to legislate or prescribe for effective religious education or collective worship. I do not believe that it is for schools to proselytize. I believe
268
that is the role of families and churches. However, schools can inform and can make children aware of that religious dimension. It is the quality and commitment of the teachers—how I wish more of them were like the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy—and of the people around them at school that will bring the children and the teenagers to an understanding of that religious dimension, whether it is Christian, Jewish or Moslem.
It is not what teachers say that counts; it is how they behave to each other and to their pupils. In my view, truly valuable and effective religious education is implicit rather than explicit. In fact, it need not be limited to RE lessons and assemblies at all. I quote one short sentence from a book entitled The Vision of Glory, by John Stewart Collis, in which he states:
"Physics is not supposed to be a religious or a poetic study. I cannot share this view, and I confess that ever since I looked into the subject hardly a day has passed that I have not increasingly marvelled at the masonry of creation and the mystery of design".
I conclude by making three suggestions. The Education Reform Act places a duty on every local education authority to constitute a standing advisory council on education. Could this be given extra support from Her Majesty's Government and from our Christian Churches working with representatives from other religions and faiths? Faith is the operative word. Let us encourage faith, but I have to say it is not necessarily going to be in a Christian God.
Recently I heard of an interesting experiment—a theologian in residence. Every year the former Dean of Liverpool cathedral, Edward Patey, spends a week at St. Swithun's School, Winchester—whose headmistress, I believe was brought up as a Methodist. Of course, careful preparation is made in advance. He attends various lessons taken by teachers who volunteer to have him in their class. From that stems some fascinating discussions about nuclear fusion, the big bang in physics, genetic engineering, embryo research in biology, environmental issues in chemistry, capital markets in economics, as well as the more obvious subjects in English, history and geography. Clearly, those discussions are given a real Christian dimension. I suggest that Christian Churches and religious communities might offer a theologian-in residence programme to schools in their local areas. It would be interesting and it could be productive.
I come now to my third and final suggestion. The delivery of religious education rests ultimately and inevitably with the head teacher. Could we please have more INSET (in-service training for teachers) courses and seminars and support services for those key people so that they may ensure in their schools not only the basic bones of the national curriculum but also the religious dimension which we surely all want for our children?
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as several speakers have already said, the Education Reform Act 1988 made it clear that any new agreed syllabus of religious education should reflect the fact that religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian while taking account of the teaching and practices of

269
the other principal religions represented in this country. It also restates that religious education should be part of the basic curriculum, reinforcing the 1944 Act in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, indicated anxiety that the law is not being adhered to. Other speakers have also questioned whether the Act is being implemented fast enough. Clearly it is important that educational legislation should not be ignored. Moreover, high quality teaching is as important in the area of religious education as in any other subject on the curriculum.
However, what is certainly not clear to me is just what evidence there is as to whether or not the provisions are being fulfilled. Earlier this year the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, asked a question about Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act and what progress had been made in implementing it. At that time the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, stated that only two formal complaints had been made. It would be interesting and helpful to know from the Minister whether there have been any further formal complaints since then. If not, I do not believe that it would be unduly complacent to interpret that to mean that on the whole the Act is being applied, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, and that the system is working at least adequately. It is certainly an area in which there would be many complaints if that were not the case.
Moreover, the National Curriculum Council has a responsibility for overseeing the development of religious education. In a recent report published in April this year its chairman stated:
"I have been impressed by the extent of curriculum development in RE since 1988 and recognise the hard work that LEAs, officers, teachers and the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) members have contributed to this".
Most LEAs have been anxious to implement the Act. There is certainly no reluctance on their part to do so, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, implied earlier, although I have to say that in some cases they have been hampered by resource problems, which I shall return to later.
Yet at the same time Her Majesty's Inspectorate has indicated some anxiety about the teaching of religious education in Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's report on the year 1990–91. He suggested that in primary schools religious education was being taught superficially in many schools, and that in some others it was not taught explicitly. He suggested that at the secondary stage the entitlement of some pupils to religious education was not being met and that that was particularly true in Key Stage 4 where it was often included as part of a combined course with elements of personal and social education rather than timetabled under its own name. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether or not the Government have responded to that report. It would also he helpful to know how any formal complaints about the agreed syllabus have been dealt with.
Although the National Curriculum Council has produced a framework for the teaching of RE, which was published in 1991, Her Majesty's Inspectorate has
270
not published a booklet on RE in the curriculum matters series. It is rumoured that a draft was prepared soon after the introduction of the 1988 Act but that has not appeared. Undoubtedly, a document of that kind would be helpful and I wonder whether the Minister can say why it was not published and whether it could now be made available.
There is, it seems, a rather mixed picture in relation to the evidence. What does seem to be clear, however, is that there is a shortage of qualified teachers for RE as well as insufficient advisers in the local education authorities. The standing advisory councils on religious education themselves have apparently been somewhat short of funds. Few have received a budget to help them plan ahead. That is a reflection of the problems many local authorities now face in providing sufficient funds for many of the activities for which they are responsible.
It is not just the LEAs and the schools which are complaining about teacher shortages. The Church of England has pointed out that while there are more than enough qualified teachers in Church of England schools, many county schools are unable to fill their vacancies for religious education teachers. I was interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate said earlier on the matter. The Church has also complained about the lack of funding for in-service training and education—a point which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. Can the Minister say whether she accepts the Church's view that there is inadequate funding for in-service education and training? If so, could she consider an increase in funds in the GEST programme in order to support curriculum development in this area and to improve teachers' knowledge and skills?
In relation to the monitoring of religious education, the Minister herself told the House on a previous occasion that that is a task for the inspectorate. Several noble Lords endorsed that view this evening. It is not clear whether Her Majesty's Inspectorate will have a role in directly inspecting school religious education under the Education (Schools) Act 1992. But what is clear is that the privatisation of the local authority inspectorate services will not assist with the development of religious education because of the loss of the RE inspectorate and advisory staff as a resource for the whole local education authority.
Well planned religious education can play an important part in the moral and religious development of young people. It is also the case, as the chairman of the National Curriculum Council put it recently, that spiritual development,
"is not confined to children from religious backgrounds but is something fundamental to the human condition, with relationships, the universal search for individual identity, for a meaning in life, and values by which to live".
As the right reverend Prelate has already said, it is also important that religious education should provide both knowledge and understanding of the other major faiths in Britain as well as giving a significant place to Christianity.
However, there are approximately 3 million people of other faiths and it is important that we encourage tolerance in all our young people. That tolerance should also be extended to people who are humanists

271
and who do not have any particular religious faith. I regret the rather unpleasant gibe about Fabian secularists made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I thought that it was a little unworthy of him, if I may say so. However, I thought that it was not as unworthy as the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about the Inner London Education Authority. I have to remind him that while he may not have liked the agreed syllabus of the ILEA—and he is entitled to his views about that and I respect them —that syllabus was produced by the ILEA's Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education whose members included many representatives of the Church as well as teachers of religious education. The syllabus was not produced by officers of the ILEA nor by the National Union of Teachers. I therefore hope that he will reconsider the remarks that he made earlier.
Good religious education in schools should neither undermine pupils' faiths nor, as a number of speakers have said, proselytize. It should make it possible for those of no faith to reach a mature understanding of religious ideas. The National Curriculum Council has found that most agreed syllabuses define two broad areas of attainment in religious education: first, that pupils should understand the teaching and practices of Christianity and other world religions; and that they should be encouraged to develop their own beliefs and values.
I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate that religious education should not be confused with religious instruction and nurture. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, confused those aspects once or twice. It is the task of schools to provide religious education. It is the task of the Churches and other religious institutions to provide religious instruction.
I refer again to the attainment targets that have been indicated by the National Curriculum Council. They seem to me to be eminently sensible and feasible. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, it also seems sensible that the agreed syllabus should be able to reflect local differences. That is what the individual SACREs are able to do.
As a non-expert in the teaching of the subject, I do not presume to prescribe what the syllabus should cover or how it should be taught. Moreover, I believe that it would be dangerous for lay members of your Lordships' House to attempt to do so. It is a matter for the SACREs and for the specialist inspectorate then to monitor. The main cause for worry is not that the Act is being ignored or that the letter of the law is not being fulfilled but that the quality of religious education may not be as high as it should be, notably because of the lack of trained teachers in that subject and because of insufficient in-service training.
9.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the measures introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988 provide a clear indication of the importance that the Government attach to religious education in schools. I freely acknowledge the contribution of my noble friend Lady Cox, who, with myself, my noble friend Lord
272
Tonypandy and others who have spoken in the debate, burnt much midnight oil in fighting for the Education Act that we have on the statute book today. Other noble Lords were also part of that gathering of people who made it a better Act.
The Act describes religious education as part of the basic curriculum for all pupils. In the basic curriculum it stands alongside the subjects of the national curriculum and we have made it clear that religious education has equal status with those subjects. This reflects the importance that we attach to the role of schools in children's spiritual and moral development.
Unlike the subjects of the national curriculum, religious education is not subject to nationally prescribed attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements. Responsibility for the detailed structure, content and teaching of religious education remains, as it always has been, with local bodies. This recognises the fact that if religious education is to meet the needs of pupils effectively it must take into account the views and beliefs of the local community in both its content and delivery.
The Education Reform Act says nothing new about religious education in aided schools—that is, denominational schools—which is generally provided in accordance with a trust deed. In county schools, however, religious education is provided in accordance with a locally agreed syllabus.
Before 1988 there was very little in the law about the nature and content of such syllabuses, save the requirement that they should not be distinctive of any denomination. The Education Reform Act, however, makes an important stipulation about the content of new agreed syllabuses—that is, those adopted after September 1988. That stipulation is that such syllabuses must:
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".
It is worth noting that there is no requirement for local authorities to review their agreed syllabuses. I suspect that that is giving rise to some of the anxieties that have been voiced during the debate today.
I am aware that some noble Lords have reservations about the latitude which that form of words may allow local education authorities in determining the content of syllabuses. There will always be room for interpretation within the law. There may also be room for interpretation within an agreed syllabus. Teachers, head teachers and school governors have a central role in ensuring that the religious education which is provided is appropriate to the requirements to fulfil the moral and spiritual dimension of a child's education.
Christianity should lie at the heart of religious education. As was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, it is central to our cultural heritage. It is vital that children growing up in this country develop a knowledge of the Christian heritage which has had and continues to have such an impact on our society and values.
That is not to undermine the importance of children developing an understanding of other faiths and the beliefs of others in the community. That is

273
why the law requires that, in addition to learning about Christianity, the curriculum should also take account of the needs and aspirations of the many people within this country who hold different religious beliefs. Without that requirement parents from other faiths would have little option but to withdraw their children from religious education entirely. That could only weaken the school community and would not help to promote tolerance and mutual understanding. Nor does the law advocate the "fruit cocktail" approach to religion. My noble friend Lady Cox talked of the purity of each religion within the teaching of religious education.
The needs of other faith groups are, I believe, adequately met in the existing arrangements. My noble friend Lady Cox referred to difficulties encountered by the MECC in obtaining information on SACREs' activities. Each SACRE is required to provide and publish an annual report on its activities. They are asked to send a copy of that report to the NCC. It publishes an analysis of the reports which is freely available and can be readily obtained from the NCC. If any group or individual has further difficulty in obtaining a SACRE's annual report from the SACRE or LEA I should be interested to know and I shall do all that I can to ensure that that blockage is unblocked.
While we are aware that many local education authorities have revised their agreed syllabuses to take account of the new requirements of the Education Reform Act, the law does not require authorities to review their existing syllabuses and I cannot insist that they should. The law does not allow for that. The impetus must come locally. I should mention here that local Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education, or SACREs, are a key element in this process.
The Education Reform Act requires local authorities to set up such councils, and in turn the Act provides that the councils should have the right to require a review of the agreed syllabus. Their membership includes representatives from the established Church, other churches and faith groups, the local education authority and teacher trade unions. The National Curriculum Council's 1992 analysis of SACRE reports reveals that during 1991 standing advisory councils' agendas have been dominated by the revision and implementation of agreed syllabuses. That signals a concentration of curriculum development in religious education unparalleled since 1944. Despite all that, we know from the NCC's analysis that only just over one third of local education authorities have already or are in the course of producing new agreed syllabuses.
Perhaps I may appeal to the right reverend Prelate and say that I hope that the established Church and others will continue to press for further positive change in religious education and will listen to worries expressed by parents and governors about agreed syllabuses. SACREs have a major role in ensuring that religious education is appropriate and lawful and that it enhances the spiritual well-being of our young people.
274
I understand, however, the anxiety about those local authorities which have chosen not to review their agreed syllabuses in the light of the new requirements of the Act. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to monitor the extent to which syllabuses have been revised and, if necessary, will take further action to encourage all LEAs to review their syllabuses.
These new syllabuses must of course comply with the new requirements introduced by the Education Reform Act. If they do not the responsible local education authorities lay themselves open to the possibility of a formal complaint under the new complaints procedures also introduced by the 1988 Act.
Those complaints procedures are designed to allow parents, and others, to raise objections about the curriculum in schools, including religious education. Complaints must first be heard at the local level. That is right, given that responsibility lies at that level. Such local action has already proved successful, as my noble friend Lady Cox has indicated. Beyond the local level, there is a further possibility for action. If those complaining are not satisfied by the school or local authority's response, the complaint may be referred to the Secretary of State.
At this point I should say to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have spoken that I take very seriously the points they have made about the sense of intimidation and the strength of character required by a parent to challenge the system. I shall think further about the points made on that issue.
Since the Act we have received only two formal complaints about religious education syllabuses, and that number has not increased. Because of what I have heard about the difficulty of making complaints, I understand that that does not mean that there is not more dissatisfaction in the community about religious education. The two complaints concerned the local agreed syllabuses for Ealing and Newham local education authorities. In both cases, the authorities are making arrangements to revise their agreed syllabuses in the light of our advice. That is evidence of the positive value of the complaints procedures.
In the course of considering these complaints, the Government took legal advice as to the interpretation which a court would be likely to take about the nature of an agreed syllabus which would comply with the law. That advice has been made available to all local education authorities. It is proof that we will take action to encourage and assist local authorities in fulfilling their responsibilities.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Cox about the difficulties which parents may face in pursuing complaints and the single-mindedness which parents must show in pressing for action. I should remind noble Lords that others may make complaints, and pursue them, on behalf of parents, or simply from their own interest. I am aware that some bodies—for example, Christians and Tyneside Schools and the Parental Alliance for Choice in Education—have been active in supporting parents in making complaints. I encourage any person who is unsure or anxious about the religious education provided in a school to seek

275
assurances from the school and local authority, and to pursue a formal complaint if they are dissatisfied with the response. Perhaps I may add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said. I am sure that the established Church would assist any parent who felt intimidated by the process of making a formal complaint.
Aside from formal complaints, the Government also monitor the situation directly. When HMI reports on schools, it considers all aspects of the curriculum including religious education, and if it is not satisfied, it draws that to the attention of the governors and local authority. In most cases that is sufficient to put the matter right; but, if necessary, the department takes up the case formally. Noble Lords will be aware that as a result of amendments laid in this House, the new arrangements for school inspection contained in the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will ensure that those inspections pay attention to moral and spiritual aspects of the curriculum. I believe that that requirement, the fact that many more inspections will be carried out under the new arrangements and that the reports will be published locally, will increase pressure on schools and authorities to take their responsibilities for religious education seriously. Parents will also have better information to judge whether they are satisfied with the religious education provided for their child.
I should also like to mention the work undertaken by the National Curriculum Council. The council is the Government's main source of advice on the curriculum, and is active in supporting religious education. We expect the council to continue to monitor religious education in the curriculum, and to issue guidance as necessary. Apart from the annual analysis of SACRE reports, the National Curriculum Council has, for example, published advice for those local education authorities and agreed syllabus conferences wishing to draw up a curriculum framework along national curriculum lines. The NCC also proposes to undertake an analysis of agreed syllabuses locally to see whether there is further guidance which it can offer.
The NCC's chairman, David Pascall, in a brilliant speech recently to the Religious Education Council for England and Wales, encapsulated the Government's view, referring to the invaluable contribution religious education makes to pupils' education. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. Mr. Pascall went on to emphasise the local responsibility for ensuring that religious education is taught, and taught well. However, the NCC intends to review the extent to which spiritual and moral values can be developed through the national curriculum, religious education, and otherwise, in schools. That is a most helpful development.
My noble friend Lady Cox mentioned competition for resources with other subjects. The NCC has a general duty to consider the manageability and possible overload of the curriculum. As part of its work, it will take into account the need for schools to balance the requirements of all subjects in the curriculum to ensure that none are overlooked. In particular, the NCC is planning guidance on planning
276
the whole curriculum including religious education at upper primary levels. The House will also be aware of the steps which the Government have taken to increase flexibility in the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds which will help to ensure that adequate time is available for the study of religious education for this age group.
I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that the allocation of financial resources is a matter for local decision and will welcome the Government's efforts to ensure that such decisions are taken at the school level. The combined effect of more frequent inspection and local resourcing will enable schools to react quickly where they need to improve their religious education. The Government provide specific grant support to schools and authorities for the in-service training of teachers. Again, the way in which these resources are used is a matter for local decision, but where religious education needs to be improved, schools should consider it just as seriously as they consider any other national curriculum subject.
I am also aware that many organisations are providing materials for use in teaching religious education, and that such resources increasingly take account of the requirements of the Education Reform Act. That is a further positive sign. I hope that bodies developing those resources will ensure that their existence is widely known to SACREs and teachers.
The new provisions in the Education Reform Act relating to religious education are already capturing the imagination of the local bodies. I believe that we can look forward to a period of vigorous activity in the religious education field. Through the Education Reform Act we have defined new requirements for the content of religious education in schools; clearly defined responsibility for these matters at the local level, and I have referred to various ways in which the review of agreed syllabuses is being encouraged. We are also ready to take action where necessary through guidance to local bodies to assist them in their vital task of developing religious education for children in our schools. In particular, we plan to issue a revised circular on religious education and collective worship in due course once complaints cases at present under consideration have been determined, and to take account of recent legislation.
Perhaps I can touch briefly on a number of points made in the debate. Reference was made by my noble friend Lady Cox to the Oldham complaint raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. The question is not one concerning the sufficiency of the complaint. The Secretary of State is actually barred by law from considering a complaint before it has gone through the local complaints procedures. However, I will look into what my noble friend said with regard to helping parents who are worried and daunted by the process to enable them to make their complaints.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to the Bradford syllabus. If the Bradford syllabus is as he described then it does not reflect that Christianity should be given greater prominence and I shall certainly look into it. However, perhaps I can appeal to the right reverend Prelate, his colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford and the

277
established members of the SACRE for Bradford to put pressure on the local authorities to get the syllabus right.
Reference was made to the shortage of RE teachers. The right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords mentioned the point and it is important. I know that there are various reasons for it, not least of which is the depressing number of teachers who feel themselves unable to teach this subject to their pupils.
The right reverend Prelate made an important point concerning the vigorous follow-up to the local authorities not responding to the National Curriculum Council's questionnaire, and he cited certain local authorities. Where there is no advertising for religious education teachers the schools fall short of what should be being taught. I believe that that situation is serious and again it must be looked into.
I was asked about a timetable plan to follow up an adverse inspection. I can say that that is absolutely in hand as a result of the 1992 Inspection Act. If a school receives an adverse report it will be required by law to produce an action plan and that will he shared with the parents and governors of the school.
With regard to the effect of intended legislation on the organisation of schools on local bodies for religious education and collective worship, I can assure the House that we are giving careful consideration to those changes which may be needed to be made in the arrangements for the standing advisory councils. That was a point made by a number of people including my noble friend Lady Brigstocke.
I was asked about the inspection arrangements and the marginalising of religious education. The governing body of the school will be required to produce an action plan setting out what action it intends to take in the light of any inspection. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred, as I have just done, to teachers not willing to teach RE. Since the 1944 Act teachers have had the right not to teach RE on the ground of conscience. I share the anxiety of noble Lords in this matter. It is a depressing fact that so many teachers are not prepared to teach the subject.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was worried about the role for ministers and parents. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for his support concerning the role of those outside the schools. That is a helpful source of advice for the schools. I believe that he also referred to the reserve powers which the Secretary of State has to expedite complaints. The Secretary of State has general powers to investigate whether a local authority is acting unreasonably, but at the same time authorities have a duty to investigate in full all complaints made to them. There is absolutely no excuse for procrastination in any case where an authority was beyond doubt delaying a complaint unnecessarily. The Government would take that very seriously; but we must allow time for the complaint to be dealt with at the local level.
My noble friend Lord Brentford was anxious about the proportion of time to be spent on Christianity and other religions. The general guidance given by the department is necessarily susceptible to a variety of
278
interpretations including the needs of the local community. Therefore, it is not possible to lay down nationally a precise proportion of teaching time which should be devoted except that it should mainly reflect Christianity. The fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian would in most cases be properly reflected by devoting most attention to Christian traditions. According to our legal advice, that is the criteria against which an agreed syllabus would be judged.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, referred to teacher training. The current circular referring to the initial training of teachers requires all primary teacher training courses to include training in the teaching of religious education. I believe that the point he was proffering to me was whether we could re-emphasise that point. I shall take back his message that he would like a further circular to be sent out on this matter.
I have dealt with the points raised by the noble Baroness concerning reports from the HMI. I believe that I was pressed, again by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, about public access to SACRE meetings. I shall take that point back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Its reports are published annually. I believe that more people should avail themselves of them. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke asked whether the SACREs could have more support. I am not sure that it is a question of more support. We need to be very much more vigilant about the people we put on these bodies. The local authorities and the established Church need to be more vigilant as to whom they put on those bodies. The trade unions which represent teachers also need to care about that matter. It is for those bodies to take their work seriously. I do not believe it is a question of support but of the people there being cognizant of the Act and making sure that what work they produce is consistent with it.
The idea of a theologian in residence is a message for the right reverend Prelate. It is a very good idea. A question was raised about in-service training. I shall take all these ideas back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked why we did not publish an HMI report on religious education. There are no plans at the present time for a separate publication on religious education in the HMI series Aspects of Primary Education.
Religious education is covered in the HMI's first report on the implementation of curricula requirements of the Education Reform Act. I have referred the' House to the work which is going on in the National Curriculum Council which I believe will more than compensate for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked: where is the evidence that things are going wrong? She has heard a number of noble Lords tonight expressing anxiety. I have no doubt that if we pressed my noble friend Lady Cox she could keep us here a very long time evidencing her case. Perhaps I may also say that my noble friend Lady Cox was also extremely positive about the good things that were going on in the field of religious education. I suspect that she spent more than a good half of her speech making that point. However, she

279
went on to say that more needs to be done. Again, it is worth noting that about two thirds of local education authorities have not updated their agreed syllabuses. I believe that it is incumbent upon us all to put pressure on them to do just that.
Like other noble Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was anxious about resources. In addition to the Government providing specific support for training for the basic curriculum, which includes religious education—this is aside from national curriculum subjects—through the grants for educational support and training, which includes support for the new and continuing appointment of advisory teachers and for non-teaching staff, in the current year the expenditure support from GEST is in the order of £54 million on those categories.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also mentioned the organisation of the teaching of RE. It is for individual schools to decide whether RE is
280
taught as a free-standing subject, as part of the humanities or as personal or social education. That is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the local education authority and the school. However, religious education sometimes becomes rather lost when taught in that way. It is not recognisable as a subject in itself. That causes some anxiety, especially for the parent who may wish to withdraw a child from such teaching. If RE is unrecognisable as a subject, it is difficult to know what would be lost by withdrawing a child from that education.
In conclusion, I assure the House that the Government are committed to the place of Christianity in religious education. We shall continue to emphasise that commitment wherever appropriate, while recognising the needs of others.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.