Sitting of 13 July 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  To be considered on Thursday 20 July.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  To be considered on Tuesday 18 July.

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question —[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 20 July.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 20 July.

  BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 20 July.

  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 July.

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 18 July at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Gaelic Broadcasting
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with broadcasters in Scotland on future options for Gaelic television.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met Comunn Na Gaidhlig to discuss Gaelic television.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I have had a number of discussions with broadcasters in Scotland during the course of this year, and with Comunn Na Gaidhlig in September of last year, about the provision of television and radio programmes in the Gaelic language. More recently, officials have met Comunn Na Gaidhlig and other interested parties to discuss this subject.
    Mr. Macdonald: Has the Minister had time to read the System 3 poll in today's issue of The Scotsman, which shows support from two thirds of the people of Scotland for increased Gaelic broadcasting? Does he recognise the support that there is from Scottish Members on both sides of the House for the principle of a Gaelic broadcasting council, as suggested by Comunn Na Gaidhlig, and modelled on the Peacock recommendations that so influenced the Government's own plans? Will the Government take up Comunn Na Gaidhlig's imaginative idea and establish a Gaelic broadcasting council that will put Gaelic broadcasting on a new footing for the future?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I read the result of that poll in today's issue of The Scotsman, and I am well aware of the many comments made by Scottish Members in the broadcasting debate in the Scottish Grand Committee two days ago. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider carefully current views about increased Gaelic broadcasting, be it television or radio.
    Mrs. Michie: I am delighted that the Minister met Comunn Na Gaidhlig. When he next visits Tiree, will he discuss with the people their support for the provision of Gaelic television broadcasting? Does he accept that 10 hours a week is the absolute minimum for a basic Gaelic television service? Will he take a bold initiative to secure the future of the Gaelic language?
    Mr. Renton: I expect that the next time that I am, with permission, in the hon. Lady's constituency and on the isle of Tiree, I shall hear representations about the provision of Gaelic broadcasting. When I was last on Tiree I received particular representations about the use of Gaelic in Schools, and I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is making available £850,000 this year for that purpose. I point out to the hon. Lady, who is very interested in the subject, that the 1988 report of Scottish Television—the largest independent television company in Scotland—comments:
    1116
    "One in 100 of our viewers is a Gaelic speaker, and we maximised our service to them by showing programmes made by both Grampian and ourselves."
    If Scottish broadcasters are really convinced of the need for more Gaelic programmes, one would have thought that they would go out of their way to produce them.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend say exactly how many Scottish Members can speak Gaelic?
    Mr. Renton: I can say to my hon. Friend "ceud mille failte", which means a hundred thousand greetings. That is about the limit of my Gaelic. Opposition Members must tell the House how many of them speak Gaelic. Only 82,000 of the Scottish population of 5·2 million speak Gaelic, which is about 1·5 per cent.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister accept that this is not merely a matter of who does or does not speak Gaelic? The Scottish community is united in wishing to see the regeneration of that part of our culture. Does he also accept that as £13 million has left Scotland to fund the Welsh channel and as our Welsh counterparts would not wish their advantage to be our disadvantage, a similar level of investment in Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland would ensure that we could regenerate our language?
    Mr. Renton: I understand what the hon. Lady says and I should be the last to belittle Scottish interest in regenerating the Gaelic language. There were some 1,400 hours of radio broadcasts in Gaelic last year, although the number of television hours fell from about 114 to 77. The broadcasters must have their fingers on the pulse—that goes for the BBC as well as the independent companies —of Scottish requirements. If they thought that there was a strong need, particularly for more television in Gaelic, they would go out of their way to satisfy that demand.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Am I right in estimating mathematically, from what my hon. Friend has said, that there are about 150,000 Gaelic speakers? That compares with several million cockney speakers. What will he do to arrange a separate television channel for cockneys?
    Mr. Renton: That is an extremely dangerous question for a Member like myself who lives in Sussex to answer. Many ethnic minorities in Scotland would be interested in programmes in their languages, particularly with the development of community radio. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) did not say that we are looking into the arrangements for S4C in Welsh.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Minister realise that over the past few years great strides have been made in promoting the speaking of Gaelic, not as some special obscure subject but as part of day-to-day life? Does he accept that television is one of the greatest influences on culture and that there is a need for a structured Gaelic broadcasting council, as proposed by Comunn Na Gaidhlig, to promote Gaelic? Or, is his attitude that Gaelic broadcasting should be shuffled off into the night hours as a result of the pressures of the market place and that if it cannot be made to pay, it does not matter?
    Mr. Renton: I have in front of me the Labour policy document on broadcasting, "Broadcasting in a free society", which has just been produced. I see nothing in it about broadcasting in Gaelic. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman played a considerable part in writing it.

    Police Stations (Metropolitan District)
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the physical condition of police stations within the Metropolitan police district.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The receiver for the Metropolitan police district wrote to the Home Department on this subject on 26 June 1987. The Metropolitan police estate was also the subject of a report published by the National Audit Office on 22 June 1989.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware of the poor physical conditions of several Metropolitan police stations, particularly Bexleyheath station, and that such poor facilities could result in a lack of efficiency and morale in the police force?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to focus on Bexleyheath. I accept that it is coming to the end of its useful life. I hope that we shall be able to provide capital allocations for the purchase of a new site in due course. My hon. Friend put the question persuasively.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware of the importance of this question? Despite repeated promises by him and other Ministers in his Department, remand prisoners are still kept in police cells and women prisoners in particular are kept in the most deplorable conditions, lacking washing and exercise facilities. That should be of great concern to the Minister.
    Mr. Hogg: It has indeed been a problem. I am glad to say, however, that we have substantially reduced the number of prisoners in police cells in the south-east. The precise figure is not in my head, but it is between 20 and 40.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the ministerial group on crime prevention.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The ministerial group on crime prevention manages our successful crime prevention strategy. Its recently published progress report records how it does this: the prototype crime-free car, the reduction by over a third in the number of coin meter break-ins and the programme of Government-funded security measures for passengers on the London Underground are just three examples of initiatives which it supervises.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend's ministerial group is doing excellent work, and many Conservative Members have noticed the drop of 6 per cent. in recorded crime in the past 12 months. Will my right hon. Friend remember, however, that crime prevention can be achieved in a number of ways?
    There is widespread concern in the north-west following the trial of David Evans at Chester Crown court and his conviction for the murder of a 15-year-old girl. Evans had been released from prison after serving seven years of a 10-year sentence for rape: he received full remission. My right hon. Friend will be aware of Lord Carlisle's excellent report on the review of the parole
    1118
    system. Will he look carefully at the recommendations for supervision of prisoners released on remission after being sentenced for serious offences, in an attempt to prevent the repetition of cases such as that of David Evans?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. Personally, I have considerable sympathy with that recommendation by the Carlisle committee. We are examining the recommendations coherently and as a whole, and of course a change in the law will be needed.
    My hon. Friend will know that offenders are already placed under supervision if they are released on parole. David Evans was refused parole, as are nearly all serious offenders serving five years or more; he was released when he could no longer be lawfully held in prison. The case certainly adds weight to my hon. Friend's suggestion, although it should be realised that supervision is not and cannot be a guarantee against a new offence being committed.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that crime prevention is wider than the simple act of dealing with matters such as break-ins? Does he agree that experience in America has shown the value of educational programmes, particularly in respect of crimes connected with drug abuse? Might not such programmes, perhaps funded by the Home Office supported by the Department of Education and Science, be explored as a means of preventing young people from becoming involved with addictive drugs?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed, they must be explored. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. It is not simply a matter of enforcing the law, although that is very important: a reduction in demand for drugs—heroin, cocaine or "crack"—through education of the young in particular is crucial, perhaps even more important than law enforcement.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making towards securing greater value for money from the Metropolitan police service.
    Mr. Hurd: My Department and the Metropolitan police are working hard to improve the use of resources and to secure better value for money. Measures have included a continuing programme of civilianisation, efficiency scrutinies and contracting-out of services, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will now conduct independent inspections of the Metropolitan police.
    Mrs. Gorman: Can my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the progress that has been made in the past three years in civilianising clerical jobs in the Metropolitan police force and contracting out other non-police work? According to the audit report, less than 25 per cent. of police time is spent policing out on the job, in the case of inspectors the figure is as little as 40 per cent. Most of their time is spent in the station doing clerical work.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. Much has been done, and much remains to be done. Between 1 April 1985 and March this year more than 400 police officers were released for operational duties because of civilianisation,

    1119
    and I have authorised 200 additional civil staff this financial year to release 200 more officers. There is a similar story on contracting out. One result of such activity is that the hours spent on street duty by London's uniformed police officers rose by 9 per cent. last year.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Home Secretary read the National Audit Office report which outlines innumerable examples of poor estate management by the Metropolitan police? What action does he intend to take, or must policemen in the London area still work in Victorian conditions without any understanding by the Home Secretary of their problems, with the resultant effects on morale?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has already answered a question on that precise point. We have a programme for improving and modernising police stations, particularly in London. I hope that some of the new capital spending arrangements that are coming into effect will enable the Met to do more than it has done already.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the number of fingerprint officers were to be increased, the crime detection rate would be higher? Is he aware that only 40,000 out of 2 million crimes where fingerprints were left behind were solved in that way?
    Mr. Hurd: There has been concern about the pace at which the new techniques are being introduced. It is something that I am reviewing.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the system of screening, by which the importance of 999 calls is assessed before they are answered, intended to make the Metropolitan police force more cost effective? What proportion of 999 calls are not answered as a result of screening?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's latter point without notice, but I shall certainly let him know. I am glad to correct a misleading figure that has appeared in the newspapers—that only 15 per cent. of reported crimes are screened in. The figure is just about double that—30 per cent. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree with the principle that the police should devote resources to solving crimes where they have a reasonable chance of locating the criminal because there are clues. No crimes are screened out by category. Crimes are screened out when there is no particular clue or reason to suppose that the offender can be located. I think that the public understand that.

    "A Criminal Code for England and Wales"
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report of the Law Commission No. 177: "A Criminal Code for England and Wales".
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Law Commission's report has only recently been presented to Parliament. The Government are at present studying its proposals.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Minister will be aware that his father was not satisfied with that answer in another place. Does he acknowledge that these proposals, conceived when my right hon. Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary 21 years ago, have truly come of age?
    1120
    Does he accept, in the words of the Law Commission, that it is crucial to the liberty of the individual and the protection of society that people should easily have access to the criminal law? Does he also accept that their implementation would save time and money and would modernise the criminal law by making it more accessible, comprehensible, consistent and certain?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree that the report was produced by a team of extremely distinguished contributors, both lawyers and academics. The report deserves the closest possible consideration by the Government, which it will be given. There are undoubtedly a substantial number of advantages in codification, but there are also some objections to be considered. We have to come to a balanced view, after full consideration.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend remember that whereas the existing corpus of criminal law is, for the most part, pretty clear and understandable, the introduction of a totally new code, using new language and new concepts and even introducing changes of substance, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), would lead to fiendish complexity and give employment only to the lawyers?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has identified some of the problems that are foreseen. One could never codify the criminal law in its entirety. It is at least possible that one might inhibit the courts in their development of the criminal law. However, it is a distinguished report which deserves careful consideration.

    Victims of Crime
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources the Government currently make available to those organisations concerned with counselling the victims of serious crimes against the person.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: This year we are providing nearly £4 million to victim support, chiefly to enable local schemes to employ staff to organise their services. The schemes help the victims of a wide range of crimes, including serious crimes against the person. I understand that the Department of Health will this year give £25,000 to the London rape counselling and research project to support the national element of its work. Other organisations which receive Government grants may help victims of crime, but not as their primary function.
    Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In considering non-custodial offences, will the Government give priority to offenders having to pay victims?
    Mr. Hogg: I regard this as an extremely important suggestion. As the House will know, the criminal law already makes provision for compensation to be paid by offenders in appropriate circumstances, and the courts will bear that consideration in mind.
    Mr. Winnick: Although I believe strongly in bail, remission and parole, and have not changed my mind, is it not absolutely essential that careful consideration is given by the authorities before any of those apply to people charged with or convicted of violent offences, including rape? Bearing in mind what the Home Secretary

    1121
    said a few moments ago, does the Minister recognise that the public needs to be reassured about these matters, after some very disturbing cases?
    Mr. Hogg: Unusually, I am in considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. The criteria set out in the Bail Act 1976 are about right and certainly take account of the anxieties that he has expressed.
    Mr. Greg Knight: With serious crimes, is there not a good case for ensuring that the criminal is subject to effective supervision when he is released from prison, as was identified in the Carlisle report?
    Mr. Hogg: That is an extremely interesting suggestion which deserves the fullest consideration.

    Free Television Licences
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received seeking legislation to provide free television licences for all retirement pensioners; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: Since I last replied to a question from the hon. Member on this subject on 7 June, we have received one letter, referred to us by an hon. Member, seeking free television licences for retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Skinner: The truth is that the many pensioners involved in this almighty muddle, with a few receiving free television licences and millions not, are tired of writing to the Government because they know that they are so hard-hearted that they will not respond, so they ask Labour Members of Parliament to raise the matter in the House of Commons. Is the Minister aware that in the past I0 years pensioners have been robbed of £600 a year by the Government since they broke the link with earnings? That would pay for nearly 10 television licences. When the Home Secretary gets the sack from the Prime Minister, he will pick up £7,000. He will be able to pay for televisions and licences for the rest of his life.
    Mr. Renton: This is the fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question this Session. He sounds increasingly like a cracked record with the needle stuck in the groove. I give him the same answer as before. We do not believe that television licences are a proper instrument of social policy. Free television licences for pensioners would cost about £400 million, which would mean an increase of about half for everyone else. Many in need would not benefit. The right way to help those in need is through the pensions and benefits system, not through television licences.
    Mr. Kilfedder: A real sense of grievance is felt by pensioners who have to pay the full television licence fee when they see their neighbours paying the lesser fee. Is the Minister aware that the problem has been worsened as in some cases pensioners who live in accommodation under the control of a warden have to pay the full licence fee, whereas their predecessors paid the smaller fee?
    Mr. Renton: I am aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend refers. As he knows, last year we considered the adjustment of the concessionary licences. We produced a scheme that was intended to go back to the original intention—helping those in residential nursing homes or
    1122
    accommodation attended by a full-time warden. At the same time we continue to give the concession for all those who previously benefited from it. It is not perfect, but it is the best that could be devised in a scheme that was increasingly becoming full of holes.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that, on 23 June this year, the day that the Home Secretary visited Leicester, the 3,000th Leicestershire pensioner signed a petition—which, incidentally, was launced by my mother, who is a pensioner—calling for free television licences for pensioners? As Minister with responsibility for broadcasting the hon. Gentleman has access in his offices to television sets without having to pay for a licence. Television is the only form of entertainment for many pensioners. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his meanness in denying them a free television licence means that they are denied their only form of entertainment?
    Mr. Renton: Of course, everyone realises that pensioners, like many others, depend a great deal on television, but the hon. Gentleman is echoing the nonsense in the Labour party's proposals for broadcasting. The Labour party says, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports it, that the licence fee should remain the main source of the BBC's income. At the same time, however, the hon. Gentleman suggests that low-income groups and pensioners should be exempted from the licence fee. That would mean that the licence fee would have to increase by at least half for everyone else—from £66 to over £101. That is Labour party policy. It is not just an election bribe; it is a penalty.

    Passports
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with his proposal to create an executive agency for the issuing of passports.
    Mr. Hurd: Draft proposals have been prepared as a basis for consultation with other Government Departments and the trade unions concerned. A change of status would make it easier to incorporate relevant private sector experience, and I am keen to see this done to the maximum possible extent.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that delays in issuing passports in Liverpool have caused applicants in the north considerable inconvenience and anxiety? The prospect of executive agency status, which would bring a much clearer definition of executive responsibility, has been on the agenda for over a year. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects to set a timetable for implementation of this policy and what part setting a deadline for the computer system to be fully operational will play in that?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right about the delays, which were made much worse in Liverpool by the recent strike, which, I am happy to say, is now over. The staff concerned are now working to reduce the arrears. I should like to set this agency change in hand as quickly as I can. Certain consultations must take place, and they are being undertaken. My hon. Friend is right—computerisation throughout the passport offices and a change to agency basis are two long-term solutions to this problem.
    Mr. Worthington: Year after year, we have long delays at the passport offices and, year after year, we have promises that this will end, but that has not happened this year. Again there were long queues in Glasgow. It is impossible to get through by telephone to the Glasgow passport office. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there must be an expansion of staff resources —never mind computerization—to deal with the predictable surge in passport demand every summer?
    Mr. Hurd: It would not have been sensible to do what the union required, which was to employ large numbers of extra permanent staff for a service that ebbs and flows. We have reached agreement with the union on that aspect. I agree that the service to the public must be substantially improved. A long-term solution depends upon a mixture of two things—computerisation, which has started in Glasgow, and a change in the nature of management, bringing to the greatest possible extent the relevant experience of the private sector to the passport offices.
    Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from the recent industrial action in the passport offices, the system of issuing passports and dealing with queries has been massively incompetent for years? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if he applied his formidable intellect to resolving the existing problems, which are certain to continue unless his reforms are implemented, this matter could be put right once and for all within three months?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my hon. Friend is quarrelling with the ultimate objective or with the two ways that I have suggested of meeting it. Certainly, they are preferable to continuing as we have in recent years. The immediate task is to clear up after the recent industrial action and to reduce the arrears. We are doing that partly by overtime, partly by employing extra temporary staff, and partly by a limited increase in the number of permanent staff. In the short term, that is the only way of improving the service to the public. In the longer term, we must act more drastically, as I have suggested.
    Mr. Randall: The whole House, as well as the public, could almost certainly have anticipated the problems that we have had this year. Home Office figures in the past have demonstrated the way in which demand has been outstripping the capacity to deal with them. Does the Home Secretary agree that this is a serious example of bad management in the passport office? During the introduction of the computer system, should he not have ensured that enough staff were available to deal with any contingencies and delays?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that, particularly when a large part of the public's recent misery has been brought about by the Civil and Public Servants Association and the action that it took in Liverpool. [Interruption.] Hon. Members would not expect me to staff up the passport office to deal with bloody-mindedness on the part of the union. I agree that the long-term future includes a basic change in the way in which the passport office is manned.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the real rage of some of our constituents who, in 1989, find it impossible to travel on their holidays or to go to the United States of America, purely because of the incompetence of the passport office? Will he assure the
    1124
    House that, whatever steps he intends to take, which the whole House will believe are entirely laudable, he will see that the reforms are pressed through with great vigour so that our constituents will no longer be so grossly inconvenienced?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. This is an example of a public service that has fallen below the level that the public should expect. There is a long history to it, which we can debate on another occasion. [Interruption.] I believe that we have now found, and are now putting into effect through computerisation, the correct answers. As my hon. Friend suggested, I intend to press on with all energy.

    Mr. Albert Baker
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet able to make a further statement as to the case of Mr. Albert Baker.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are considering Mr. Baker's application for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland. We shall reach a decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that, given that Albert Baker has now been in prison for over 15 years —admittedly for four horrifying sectarian murders of quite innocent Catholics—there is now growing suspicion that the constant refusal to make any move on the case of Albert Baker is related to the fact that he has begun to name those members of the security forces and the RUC who provided the weapons that he used in the murders, and that there is now an interest on the part of the Government to keep him inside for as long as possible so that those matters will not be properly aired when Albert Baker gets out?
    Mr. Hogg: I have always noted that, when the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he brings discredit upon himself. The only reason why, hitherto, a refusal has been given is because the Northern Ireland Office has concluded that he would be at risk in the general prison system in Northern Ireland and that, by reason of his behaviour, he is unfit to be housed in the special unit. We are looking at the matter again, and he will be told the decision shortly.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss immigration issues.
    Mr. Hurd: I have no present plans for a further meeting with the Governor whom I last saw in London on 8 June. But I am in constant touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who was in Hong Kong between 2 and 4 July and who is himself in close touch with the Government of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Dalyell: From his own experience of Peking, does the Home Secretary accept that, throughout Chinese history, whatever their domestic agonies have been, they have at least respected their international agreements?
    Is the Home Secretary aware that some of us think that at this time, of all times, trade missions and other contacts should go ahead not only for our good and the opening up of China, but for the good of the people of Hong Kong and for the students who died in Tiananmen square?
    Mr. Hurd: The House will debate this matter this afternoon. It goes well beyond my responsibilities, but I am quite sure that we need to assume, and work for, the reality of the Chinese honouring their promises in regard to Hong Kong.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over-excited comparisons with Portugal and their provisions for Macao are not justified, because the people there who have automatic right of entry to Portugal, and therefore to the EEC, number only just in excess of 100,000? After the Foreign Secretary's declaration during his recent visit, there is plenty of time to work out, in a calm atmosphere, a rational solution for the people who wish genuinely to apply to come to this country. Is it not self-evident that priority categories should include people who have connections with Britain, who work here and who travel between here and Hong Kong frequently?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right about numbers. Our citizenship law since 1981 has been based firmly on residency, as Portugal's has not. The thrust of the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, I think, right. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are trying to work out ways in which the existing arrangements can be made more flexible so that key people in the public and private sectors can be given assurances of one kind or another which will encourage them to stay in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Hattersley: Has the Home Secretary noticed that there is a feeling of revulsion throughout the country at the idea that some citizens of Hong Kong may be able to buy their way into Britain because they possess £150,000? Will he repudiate that principle for Hong Kong immigrants and for immigrants from other parts of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Hurd: The principle of people coming here with adequate means has been established for a long time, including under a Labour Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to this extent any scheme that we work out—we are working on a scheme as I have just said —cannot simply be based on the principle that those with the longest purses have the greatest rights.
    Mr. Maclennan: Did the Home Secretary hear the words of the Governor of Hong Kong who made it plain that, if the right of abode were granted as a last resort to British dependent territory passport holders, there would not be the sudden influx which appears to be what is worrying the Government about meeting their moral obligations in this matter?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the House of Commons would welcome it if the Government came to the House with a proposition based on that assumption, which we simply could not prove. If we suggest that the right of abode should, at least in theory, be given to a large number of people—3 million, 3·25 million or 5 million—I think that a responsible House of Commons and a responsible Government would need to consider the possibility of that right being taken up. I do not think that we can seriously discuss such a proposal without making that assumption.

    Remand Prisoners
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of people held on remand in prison on the latest available date; and what it was 12 months ago?
    Mr. Hurd: At the end of May this year, 10,540 prisoners were held on remand in prisons or in police cells. I am glad to say that that is 1,040 fewer than 12 months ago.
    Mr. Bowis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Assuming that they have not all escaped, that is rather good news. Does he have equally good news relating to remand prisoners held in police cells because a year ago they were keeping the police from their proper duty of guarding the streets of London and elsewhere?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, I do. My hon. Friend is right. At its worst, roughly 2,000 remand prisoners were held in police cells each night. The latest figure, for earlier this week, was 194, of whom 160 are in the north, because of the recent disturbances at Risley, and of whom only 34 are in the metropolitan area and the south-east. That is a big improvement.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Home Secretary aware that the figures that he has just given include young remand prisoners at Armley prison in Leeds and that there have been a number of suicides among these young men? Is he satisfied that the conditions in that prison are suitable for young remand prisoners?
    Mr. Hurd: It will be a long time before I am satisfied that, despite all the efforts, the conditions in Armley prison are suitable for any prisoner, whether convicted or on remand. The hon. Gentleman knows that because we have discussed it. We have a long way to go before prisons such as Armley are in a satisfactory state. All that one can say is that over the past year there has been a great deal of progress.

    Chief Constable (Lancashire)
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of Lancashire; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend last met the chief constable of the Lancashire constabulary at the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs conference in April, when they discussed a number of matters of mutual interest. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met the chief constable and members of the police authority on 11 July, to discuss police manpower and the costs of security arrangements at party conferences in Blackpool.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Can he confirm to the House the excellent progress that the Lancashire police force is making in increasing its crime protection rate to 49 per cent., while reducing the incidence of burglaries by 10 per cent. and implementing neighbourhood watch schemes? In the light of that excellent performance, can he give me the reassurance that he will take a broad range of representations into account when Lancashire next requests more police officers to further its excellent work?
    Mr. Hogg: I think, perhaps, that the Lancashire constabulary does not have a more persuasive friend than my hon. Friend.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bendall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Paris.
    Mr. Bendall: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the statement made recently by President Bush in Hungary? Does he agree that the western technology and finance that is now going behind the iron curtain will result, in time, in the rolling-back of the iron curtan and the end of 40 years of impoverishment for Communist countries?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have. On this, as on so many other issues, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush share a common outlook and approach. The House will recall that when the Polish president visited Britain recently my right hon. Friend was able to announce a package of help for Poland on its road to democracy and free markets, of very much the same kind as that which President Bush launched during the successful visit that he has just concluded to eastern Europe.
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House tell the Secretary of State for Transport to stop sabotaging the talks between the trade unions and British Rail? The trade unions represent railmen on less than £100 per week while the chairman of British Rail is on £100,000. While he is about it, will he ask Maurice Saatchi of Saatchi and Saatchi plc who has just received an increase of £125,000 per year from £500,000 to £625,000, to donate a bit of time to a public information campaign to demonstrate that when there are strikes on the railways it is the fault of the Government who are pulling the strings of the puppet BR management?
    Mr. Wakeham: I entirely refute the hon. Gentleman's accusation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has intervened in the strike. He certainly has not. The strike hurts everybody and benefits no one. It causes misery to commuters in London and other big cities. It hits old people and children who are particularly dependent on public transport. In my view, the unions should stop it, go back to work and negotiate with the management.
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    1128
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Leader of the House aware that British Rail's proposal to build a high-speed rail link in my constituency will have a massively damaging effect on five villages with no benefit whatsoever for local commuters or residents? Is he further aware that British Rail has a solution at its disposal, which is to give an undertaking to provide a further five miles of tunnelling and that if that undertaking were given and the five miles of tunnelling were provided, local opposition would largely be withdrawn?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am aware of my hon. Friend's continuing concern about British Rail's proposal. British Rail's route, which was announced in March, will have significantly less impact on people and the environment than its original routes options. British Rail clearly took on board many of the suggestions put to it during the consultations. I recognise that my hon. Friend is not entirely satisfied with the changes that British Rail agreed. I hope that he will continue to pursue his concern direct with British Rail. I assure him, however, that before British Rail can proceed, it will have to convince Parliament that a new line is needed and that it has minimised the impact on people and the environment.
    Mr. Kinnock: In his earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), was the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that British Rail, in its response to the pay recommendations by the arbitration tribunal, was not acting upon the advice of the Government?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am absolutely saying that. I am saying that this is a dispute which is for the management of British Rail and for the trade unions to resolve. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given it neither instructions nor guidance.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on that answer? Is he seriously asking anyone to believe that the Secretary of State for Transport, in those circumstances, can meet the chairman of British Rail on Tuesday and the one thing that they do not talk about is the response that the Government want to the arbitration recommendations? Is that not stretching belief beyond all possible credulity?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on Monday that he was seeing the chairman of British Rail on Tuesday, which he did. He discussed a number of matters with him. There was no question of the Government giving any guidance or instructions.
    While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject, he might have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who one day says that the Government should intervene and the next day that the Government should keep out of it. Why does he not make up his mind?
    Mr. Kinnock: The constant demand from the Opposition is that the Government should intervene constructively. That, too, is the demand of the travelling public. It disgraces the Government that they will not do that. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us here and now the absolute undertaking that the Government will in no

    1129
    circumstances make any intervention that will in any sense tie the hands of British Rail and prevent it from freely negotiating a proper bargain with the rail unions?
    Mr. Wakeham: I remind the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman. I shall remind him of something that was said the last time that we had a major rail strike.
    "It is wholly unjustified, damaging to the long term prospects of the railways and inexcusable in the inconvenience that it is causing to the travelling public."
    That was a quotation from the last Labour Transport Secretary. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not a shred of responsibility and does not condemn the strike.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition were a perfect example of why it is difficult to get good quality managers to work in a nationalised industry? It is because they are perpetually being mucked around by politicians and would-be politicians, such as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). Would it not be more appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ring up his friend, Jimmy Knapp, and tell him to quit all the posturing and come to an agreement on pay, without forcing railway men to lose more money in future strikes?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason why the dispute cannot be brought to an end. It is for reasonable people to get together and to settle it.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Governor of the Bank of England has called the leading banks to crisis talks in the next two or three days because of the massive increase in lending to the property market? Is he aware that yesterday's figures show that property lending is at the highest ever recorded figure—worse than during the Barber boom—at 14 per cent.? If that lending continues those banks will have to lend money so that the institutions can pay back just the interest, which has gone through the roof during the past few days. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1972 when we had the last Barber boom, it resulted in the then Government being kicked from office? The chances are that that is what will happen to this one.
    Mr. Wakeham: I can confirm no such thing. I can confirm, however, that the summit countries are meeting in Paris and that the Prime Minister will be able to say that in the 1980s investment was growing faster in this country than in any other European country, that we have created more jobs than other European countries and that we have more people in work than ever before. We have a record rate of new business formations, and British business and industry have enjoyed better conditions and sound investment during the past few years than ever before. That is much more relevant to the real world than the machinations of the hon. Gentleman's mind.
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sympathy to the graduates of university of Sussex whose ceremony yesterday was disrupted by picketing by members of the National and Local Government Officers Association? Does he further agree that the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who said, expletive deleted, that the union would be better joining the Labour party, will not resolve the dispute?
    Mr. Wakeham: I certainly share my hon. Friend's view. All those who were deprived of essential social services yesterday and children whose nurseries were closed b) NALGO action deserve full sympathy. I even have some sympathy for the spot of bother experienced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), but I think that the Labour party hardly needs another paymaster as it is already in hock to enough unions.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that the number of young men committing suicide between the age of 20 and 24 has jumped by more than 60 per cent. during the past decade of mass unemployment? The Government, however, have carried out no research into any relationship between mass unemployment and the increase in the suicide rate. Are we to assume that the Government are not even interested in finding out the all too tragic consequences of their misuse of mass unemployment as a legitimate economic tool of management?
    Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would therefore welcome today's announcement of a further fall in unemployment of 26,000 in June. That means that the figure has been falling continuously for 35 months. The hon. Gentleman should also note that the age group to which he referred has experienced the largest fall in unemployment.
    Sir Hal Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend reflect further on the NALGO strike as another example of people inflicting maximum inconvenience on the public at minimum disadvantage to themselves? Surely that throws doubt on that union's professed wish to care for the public. Does it not further call into question the wisdom of our entrusting the care of the community to such people and their political masters?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The people who have gone on strike have hurt the public, lost money themselves and gained absolutely nothing.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Leader of the House, who does travel by train, unlike the Prime Minister, recognise, as the public most certainly do, that the railwaymen's dispute over pay and conditions is entirely genuine? Does he not appreciate that British Rail has mishandled the dispute from beginning to end and that Government and ministerial statements amount to intervention of the worst

    1131
    and most divisive kind? Did the Secretary of State for Transport discuss this matter with the chairman of British Rail when he met him?
    Mr. Wakeham: I cannot keep repeating the answer, but I shall do so for the hon. and learned Gentleman for whom I have a great affection. I said that my right hon. Friend had a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and that they discussed many matters. However, my right hon. Friend did not give guidance or instructions to British Rail.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: In view of a recent court case, would my right hon. Friend consider making changes in
    1132
    the parole system to ensure that compulsive rapists are retained for their full prison sentence? Will he explain what has happened to the Carlisle report which has, apparently, been languishing on somebody's desk in the Home Office since November?
    Mr. Wakeham: I can explain the position to my hon. Friend and sympathise with his question. The idea of having more supervision for serious offenders after their release is one of the recommendations of the Carlisle committee, which needs to be looked at as a whole. They would require a change in the law. Offenders are already placed under supervision if they are released on parole. David Evans was refused parole, as are almost all serious offenders serving five years or more. However, he was released when he had served his sentence minus the statutory remission when he could no longer be lawfully held in prison. This tragic case adds weight to the argument for a change in the law. Supervision could help, but it could not guarantee that a new offence would not be committed.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 JULY—Timetable motion on the Football Spectators Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Clergy (Ordination) Measure.
TUESDAY 18 JULY—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Teacher Shortages".
Motion to take note of EC documents on animal health aspects of intra-Community trade. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 19 JULY—Until about seven o'clock motions on Water Act regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 20 JuLY—Progress on consideration of Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations.
FRIDAY 21 JULY—There will be a debate on school education against drug and alcohol abuse on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 24 JULY—Until seven o'clock completion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill.
There will be a debate on parliamentary pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Friday 28 July until Tuesday 17 October.
[Tuesday 18 July
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 4183/89; 4839/89; 5057/89

Health rules: sheep and goats, bovine embryos and poultry.

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee.
(a) HC 15-xxv ( 1988–89), para 2.
Wednesday 19 July:
Water Act Regulations
Control of Pollution (Revocations) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1150),
Controlled Waters (Lakes and Ponds) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1149),
Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharges etc.) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1151),
Control of Pollution (Discharges by the National Rivers Authority) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1157),
Control of Pollution (Radioactive Waste) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1158),
Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1160),
Director General of Water Services' Register ( Inspection and Charges) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1154),
Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1148),
Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1156),
Water and Sewerage (Conservation, Access and Recreation) (Code of Practice) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1152),
Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1161)
Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) (Designated Persons) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1155),
Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standard) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1159),
Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1147),
Water Appointment (Monopolies and Mergers Commission) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1162).]
Mr. Dobson: When the Leader of the House says that we are to have a guillotine motion on Monday curtailing debate on the Football Spectators Bill, is he seriously suggesting that the House should finish the Committee stage of the Bill before the summer recess and months before the Taylor judicial inquiry has been completed? If that is the case, will he once again reconsider and reflect on the offer that the Opposition have made—that if he and his colleagues come up with a sensible measure to deal with the problem of hooliganism and crowd safety, the Opposition will give it a fair wind. If he does not agree to that, we promise that we shall do our level best to stop the Government from successfully steering the Bill through Parliament.
I understand that later in the week it is proposed that no fewer than 13 sets of Water Act regulations should be dealt with in three hours. Those regulations have been produced as a result of the passage of the Water Act, which passed into law only 10 days ago. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there cannot possibly be any reasonable scrutiny of this subsidiary legislation and that the lack of proper scrutiny is likely to bring the House into disrepute? Will he find more time in which to consider these important regulations?
On what day will the Prime Minister make her statement about the Paris summit—or, if I know the French, the Paris festivities this weekend?
We understand from the newspapers that the Government have already decided their response to their Green Paper on the legal profession. Everyone else in the country has had the opportunity to make their views known. Do the Government intend to announce their decision before the House has had the chance to debate the proposals? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman remind his Cabinet colleagues that every penny piece paid to every lawyer in this country comes from the pockets or handbags of the constituents of those in this House, and that we have as much right as the legal profession to a say in this matter?
Referring back to last week's business questions and the points of order raised this week by my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether and when we shall have a debate on the impact

1135
of the National Health Service review on Wales, or will he drag his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Welsh Grand Committee and get him to produce the promised but as yet unavailable working papers on that impact?
Finally, we heard the Government's long-awaited response to the Griffiths report yesterday, but will the House have the opportunity to discuss the report and the Government's response to it before they come forward with a White Paper in the autumn?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me six questions about the business for next week.
I agree that there has been some progress in the Committee considering the Football Spectators Bill. These are important matters for consideration and tabling a motion, which I shall do later today, will give us a reasonable time in which to proceed and deal with those matters—
Mr. Dobson: Will the Committe stage finish before the recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can wait until we table the motion later today.
As regards the important Taylor inquiry, we have made it clear that this is an enabling Bill—to enable the House to consider Lord Taylor's proposals before the Bill is put into operation.
Mr. Dobson: Thirteen regulations in three hours!
Mr. Wakeham: I propose to table a motion which will allow for a debate of three hours on the Water Act regulations. That would be for the general convenience of the House, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said I shall undertake to have more discussions through the usual channels.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's point about the legal Green Papers, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to publish a White Paper. I cannot promise a debate before the White Paper is published, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss any proposals that may be made.
The Welsh Grand Committee debate is a cause of some difficulty and I very much regret that it has not proved possible to agree a date for a debate on the National Health Service in Wales. I believe that that matter is best discussed through the usual channels.
The House heard the Government's response to the Griffiths report yesterday and will need time to consider the proposals in it. A White Paper will be published early in the autumn, so it might be more appropriate to hold the debate then. I agree that its exact timing is perhaps best left to discussion through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that apart from business questions today we have two statements and a debate in which no fewer than 36 right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. Exceptionally, I shall have to limit business questions this afternoon. I am sure that all hon. Members' questions are very important, but I ask any hon. Member who might like to ask his question on another day to do so.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Did my right hon. Friend see the reports in the weekend papers that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was to demand a debate on the rail strike? As, yet again, the Opposition have chosen not to debate the subject when they have an opportunity to do so next Tuesday, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many Conservative Members would like to discuss the attitude of the Opposition and the fact that they continue to be the strikers' friend and not the public's friend?
Mr. Wakeham: I have a certain amount of sympathy with any hon. Member who does not propose a debate on any subject, particularly in this fortnight, so for once I am afraid that my hon. Friend will not have me on his side. I will support the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has not proposed that we should hold a debate.
Mr. James Wallace: Will there be an opportunity for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement on his proposed office of green information, so that we know whether this is a sign of freedom of information or just another attempt to massage the figures, as has happened over many months with unemployment?
Given that the Government were defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, when the Government Bench members split, will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the Floor of the House, for which many hon. Members in that debate called, so that many of the important issues facing the fishing industry can be discussed? In the meantime, perhaps the Government can come up with some answers to the pertinent questions raised in the debate.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has any plans to make a statement on the point that the hon. Gentleman raises—somewhat inaccurately, I think—and I have no plans for a debate on the fishing industry at the moment. There will have to be one, but it is better to wait until the 1990 proposals are available.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the upper House is debating the defence White Paper this afternoon. Can we expect to hold a similar debate before the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to say that I do not think that I can manage that before the summer recess, but I can arrange it early in the spillover period.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I should like to raise with the Leader of the House a serious problem that affects us in the city of Leeds. We now have a Leeds development corporation which cannot be questioned except on the Floor of the House. I have had complaints from at least 50 people in the Leeds development area who say that their land is to be taken away from them. On Tuesday that land is to be vested here by statutory instrument. There is a long list of these statutory instruments, affecting the black country, Leeds, Walsall, London, Newham and other places. Yet the debate is to last only an hour and a half.
The Government took those powers away from local government and chose to deal with these matters in this fashion. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds,

1137
West (Mr. Battle) was chairman of the industry committee in Leeds, and chairman of the urban development committee, we could go to him and the matter was raised in the local authority. That has all gone. This process is completely undemocratic. Whatever the virtues of the people who have been appointed, something must be done about that.
I am the only Member representing Leeds who is to serve on the Committee, and the whole bang shoot will be dealt with in an hour and a half. We shall have to raise most important issues. I will not use the word "flooded" because 50 letters is not a flood, but we have received many letters from people who have set up businesses and whose property is to be compulsorily purchased. They are small businesses and there are strong feelings in Leeds about this and we have just an hour and a half to debate the whole lot. It is not good enough. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about the number of orders to be dealt with on Tuesday morning?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot undertake to do that, but I shall have some discussions about the matter through the usual channels as the right hon. Gentleman has raised it. I cannot give him an undertaking, but I will look into the matter.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not disappointing that my right hon. Friend has put the Clergy (Ordination) Measure on as the last business on Monday? Does he remember me saying to him last week that many hon. Members are likely to want to speak in that debate? Does that not put a considerable strain on the Chair, and will it riot restrict the amount of time available for hon. Members to speak?
Mr. Wakeham: I regret that my hon. Friend feels that there is likely to be insufficient time, and I have some sympathy with his point of view, but this is a difficult time of year to fit everything in. I have done my best, and I am sorry if it does not meet with my hon. Friend's approval. I can look at the amount of time available to see whether any more can be found, but I cannot promise to find any more.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House reflect on early-day motion 879?
[That this House calls on the Government to accept the verdict of the electors of the Vale of Glamorgan who rejected the Government's plans to undermine the National Health Service; calls on the Government to accept that most people want more money to be spent on the Health Service and now realise that Britain is spending a smaller proportion of national income on health than most other advanced countries; notes the widespread anger that has been caused by the introduction of eyesight and dental test charges and the proposition that doctors should be turned into accountants; and consequently calls on the Government to withdraw the Health Service White Paper and the nine consultative documents published for England.]
Does he recall that last Monday he promised the House that he would seek the documents on the National Health Service in Wales that had been promised by the Secretary of State for Wales? Has he found those documents? If so, will he let us have them now so that we can discuss them?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 21 June he promised to try to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales to come to the Welsh Grand Committee and debate
1138
the National Health Service in Wales? In answer to my request that the debate be held before the recess, the Lord President said that he would do his best. Is his best not enough to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales to come to the Welsh Grand Committee to meet Welsh Members and debate the NHS? Are we not to have the necessary documents for that debate? Is the Secretary of State for Wales afraid to discuss the NHS in Wales?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would have welcomed such a debate, but it has not been possible to find a debate. I regret that I do not yet have the documents promised to the hon. Gentleman, and my inquiries on that matter are still proceeding. I have discussed the matter with my right lion. Friend and I have given the shadow Leader of the House an undertaking. I shall discuss the matter again through the usual channels. That is as much as I can promise.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend said that on Monday we would debate the ordination of the clergy, which I take to be the ordination of the divorced clergy. He will be aware that that matter is the subject of a legal challenge. I accept that as the motion has been tabled it must be in order, but does my right hon. Friend think it proper for the House to discuss that matter, the propriety and whole basis of which is the subject of legal action?
Mr. Wakeham: There are strict rules about such matters and I am sure that the House is acting in accordance with proper procedures. As my hon. Friend recognised, I should not otherwise have proposed it. I shall consider her point, but I do not think that it will alter my proposal.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be an urgent debate on the use and misuse of patronage, given that the British representative to the Council of Europe Committee on Human Rights, which is discussing the degradation and torture of prisoners, is to be none other than the former Member for Cardiff West, Mr. Stefan Terlezki—a man not renowned in this House for his libertarian views? Does that not show the Government's disdain for the important subject of human rights?
Mr. Wakeham: I consider that to be a most regrettable remark. My former colleague, who we hope will return to the House before long, is a distinguished man with a long record of great difficulties and persecutions. He will make a distinguished member of that Committee.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of early-day motion 1145, which appears on the Order Paper today and relates to the centenary of the Inter-Parliamentary Union?
[That this House recognises the centenary of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on 29th June and records its satisfaction on the placing of the bust of the late Sir William Randal Cremer, the British co-founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and the first backbencher so honoured in the Members' Lobby; further recognises that the occasion of the Centenary Conference to be held in London from 4th to 9th September will provide an opportunity for British parliamentarians to strengthen links with parliamentarians from 111 other elected countries; and looks to the

1139
Inter-Parliamentary Union to continue the work of parliamentary diplomacy in the peaceful resolution of conflict during its next century.]
In the light of earlier questions to my right hon. Friend, and recognising procedural difficulties, does he think it appropriate to cover the exercise of parliamentary diplomacy in the peaceful resolution of conflict under what I understand to be the broad terms of tomorrow's debate on a motion for the Adjournment?
Mr. Wakeham: What is or is not in order is a matter not for me, but for Mr. Speaker. I am reasonably confident, and I very much hope, that during tomorrow's debate time will be found to acknowledge the IPU's continuing excellent work in bringing together the world's parliamentarians and the significance of its centenary year. I am aware of the magnificent programme being arranged for the IPU's centenary conference in September, in which my hon. Friend has played a distinguished part.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to discuss an important matter which was omitted from the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Health? Within the whole issue of community care, we must discuss the housing needs of those being rehabilitated into the community. Does not a great deal of money need to be spent on, for example, adaptations to houses, central heating, stairlifts, and so on? As the Secretary of State for Health refused to discuss that matter yesterday, will the Leader of the House repair his omission and arrange a debate on the important matter of community care?
Mr. Wakeham: There is a proper time for discussing financial matters. Negotiations are going on with the local authorities and the right time to discuss those in later in the year when the arrangements have been fully discussed with the local authorities. I have no doubt that there will be plenty of opportunities for discussing the matter.
Mr. Edward Leigh: If my right hon. Friend talks by telephone to the Prime Minister in Paris today, will they reflect on the fact that it was rowdyism and ill-discipline in the original revolutionaries—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be about the business for next week.
Mr. Leigh: It was rowdyism that destroyed the original National Assembly. Given my right hon. Friend's responsibility for Short money, has he read the internal Labour party review report which refers to "rowdyism and indiscipline" on the Opposition Benches and the Labour party not being an organised political party? Is not that a matter of concern for our political freedom and for taxpayers' money?
Mr. Wakeham: I had enough difficulty settling the Short money and persuading the House that it was fair and reasonable not to want a further discussion on that in the immediate future, but I hope that Opposition Members have listened to my hon. Friend's wise words.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that we are under great pressure today and questions should be about next week's business.
Mr. Ray Powell: I listened to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on the Welsh Grand Committee debate on the Health Service. Together with my colleagues from Wales, I am disgusted with the right hon. Gentleman's replies and promises over the past few weeks. If he wants to protect the back of the Secretary of State for Wales, he knows as well as the House knows that the Secretary of State for Wales has a responsibility to discuss matters of urgency with Welsh Members on occasions. The Health Service in Wales is a matter of urgency. It is no good sending the matter back to the usual channels because we are getting no response there. Will the Leader of the House make an exception and get the Secretary of State for Wales to come to the House next week or the week after so that we can debate the National Health Service in Wales?
May we also have an early debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly."]—on early-day motion 866, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), which deals with the 8 million obscene telephone calls made every year?
[That this House notes with concern the results of a gallup poll conducted by Channel 4 Television showing that every year over eight million obscene telephone calls are received by women in Britain and that every day more than two thousand of these calls also threaten violence, that a number of women terrorised by such repeated calls move house or have mental breakdowns, that nevertheless telephone companies and the police rarely give this matter priority or attempt to trace the offenders, that the penalty for sending obscene letters through the post, Malicious Communications Act 1988, is higher than for making obscene calls, Telecommunications Act 1984, that fifteen per cent. of the callers know the woman they call, though the woman may not know them, and that some rapists also make obscene calls which are themselves a form of violence and an invasion of privacy; and therefore asks the Home Secretary to set up an inquiry into the extent of this problem, to examine the work of the special department of Bell Telephone Incorporated of New Jersey, United States of America which helps victims trap offending callers, to take measures to improve the rate of detection and conviction of offenders and to take steps leading to the amendment of the said Telecommunications Act 1984 Section 43 increasing the penalty; and calls upon the Director General of Telecommunications to make a condition of granting licences to British Telecom and Mercury that they each set up a department at their own expense to trace obscene phone calls when requested to do so in writing by victims.]
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I have already said about the Welsh Grand Committee. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about that, but I have said what I have said and I have done the best that I can.
I understand the distress that may be caused by obscene telephone calls. British Telecom and Mercury are ready and willing to co-operate with any police inquiries. Complaints should be referred to the police. Parliament has already put in place a statutory protection in section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It is for the Director

1141
General of Telecommunications to consider whether any licence amendments are needed. However, I will refer the matter to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week to consider the need to review planning procedures and appeals in Northern Ireland? The matter is urgent because of the granting of outline planning permission for a large three-storey block of flats at Lyle road, Bangor in my constituency which, if allowed to proceed, will have an adverse effect on the environment and will greatly reduce the value of neighbouring houses.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman speaks for his constituents, and I wish that I could give him a better response. I cannot promise a debate, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be answering questions in the House next Thursday and the hon. Gentleman could pursue him then.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: As the House will be rising for the long summer recess in 15 days' time, and in view of the strikes in two major industries that have been directly caused by the policies pursued by the Government since 1979, which force trade unions to go to the courts rather than to the negotiating table, will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on those two important disputes?
Hon. Members: Yes, please.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman joins a number of my hon. Friends in wishing for a debate, but I must say the same to him as I have said to them. I cannot find time for a debate on those matters next week. It is for the management and trade unions in the industries concerned to resolve those matters.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Did not my right hon. Friend forget one important item when he announced the business for next week? I refer to a debate on the Delors report and the Government's responses to the last week's discussions in Madrid.
Mr. Wakeham: No, I did not forget. My hon. Friend would have quickly reminded me if I had done so, as he politely tried to do just now. I recognise the desire for such a debate. I recognise also, as does my hon. Friend, that some European legislation is inadequately debated in this House. I hope very much to put proposals to improve matters to the Procedure Committee in the very near future.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the pressure of time, I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
Mr. Douglas Hoyle: In view of the business that has been announced for next week, I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 934, concerning the opting-out of Warrington district general hospital from the Health Service, signed by 71 hon. Members.
That this House supports the Medical Staff Committee of Warrington District General Hospital and the Warrington
1142
Trades Council in their opposition to the opting out of Warrington District General Hospital: and calls upon them to continue to oppose the pressure being put on them by regional and local administrators to opt out and agrees that if this hospital opts out it will be impossible to plan a health service to meet the ever expanding demands of an area which includes a new town.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern in Warrington about that? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House next week and tell us who is to be consulted about that development, and whether there will be a ballot involving the people of Warrington and the hospital's general and medical staff, who oppose the change, or whether it be left to some anonymous administrator to decide the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: No, no—the hon. Gentleman is making much of the situation, and perhaps I should try to calm him down. One hundred and seventy-eight units throughout the country have expressed an interest, on a no-commitment basis, in the self-governing proposals. All those having an interest will be given an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals before any formal application is made. District health authorities will continue to have responsibility for the overall planning of health care in meeting the needs of their local populations. There will be plenty of time to discuss those matters, so there in no need for a debate on them next week.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: May we have a statement early next week on the implications for Britain of the astonishing and worrying action of the European Court in instructing the British Government not to honour their extradition agreement with the United States and to retain in this country a person accused of two dreadful murders? We would like a statement on how a non-elected court in Strasbourg can instruct this country not to send a person for trial in a friendly, democratic country.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in such matters. I shall certainly refer his point to the colleague most directly responsible for dealing with them, and I will write to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could some indication be given next week of when the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Minister for Overseas Development, will be able to report on his visit to Brazil and on his very important negotiations concerning the rain forests there? To set a good example, will the Lord President at least contact Downing street to see whether Mrs. Carla Powell or some other designer could be persuaded to buy oak rather than mahogany, as a symbol of our intent regarding rain forests?
Mr. Wakeham: I understand that the rain forest from which the mahogany to which the hon. Gentleman refers came has since been replanted. I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development the most appropriate way for him to inform the House of his very successful visit to Brazil.
Mr Andrew MacKay: As my right hon. Friend clearly has considerable influence over the Opposition Front Bench, will he explain why he has failed to persuade it to devote next week's Supply day to a debate on the rail dispute—particularly as the Leader of the

1143
Opposition was so exercised about it during Prime Minister's Question Time today? Could it possibly be that the Opposition do not wish to be given a choice between not condemning the strike and falling out with their paymasters in the unions?
Mr. Wakeham: It is a bit mischievous of my hon. Friend to think that that might be the reason. The explanation may be that I have not quite so much influence over the Opposition Front Bench as my hon. Friend thinks.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House prepared to arrange an early debate on the conduct of local government, which would allow discussion of the latest antics of the Conservative-controlled Bradford city council? Is he aware that the council proposes next Tuesday to push through a social services committee and through the full council its plan to sell 12 old people's homes—with the old people—and that a management consultant has recommended that staff should be paid rates as low as £2 an hour?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter lies at the heart of legal challenges to the mayor's casting vote, and that an application is pending for leave to appeal to the House of Lords? Is it not disgraceful that the proposal should go ahead in the face of fierce local opposition, and despite the undemocratic way in which it has been presented? May we have a debate so that the matter can be exposed?
Mr. Wakeham: I have noticed over recent months that the hon. Gentleman is, shall we say, a little partial over matters concerning Bradford City council, so I usually come prepared with any information that I can find with which to put matters right when he makes his wild accusations.
It is, of course, for the council to decide how best to cater for the elderly. In the council's opinion, its proposals will lead to improved conditions for old people in the homes which would become privately owned, thus reducing the cost to the ratepayers of Bradford. On the face of it, that seems a very sensible policy.
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statements.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the points of order after the statements.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the points of order after the statements. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a disgrace.

North East Shipbuilders Ltd.
4.2 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Antony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the disposal of North East Shipbuilders Ltd., whose closure I announced last December, in combination with proposals for an enterprise zone and other measures to promote alternative employment in Sunderland.
As I told the House in a written answer on 7 June, in the intervening period there emerged a number of expressions of interest in bidding for some or all of the three yards for various purposes, including ship repair, shipbuilding and general engineering. We had therefore decided to ask British Shipbuilders to evaluate the proposals and to offer advice that would then be taken into account along with wider considerations. Pending a decision, elements of the remedial package not already implemented, including designation of the enterprise zone, were to be held in abeyance. In the light of British Shipbuilders' advice, we have now reviewed the position as a whole. Of the many factors involved, there are three in particular to which I should refer.
First, of course, I must refer to the bids themselves, of which there are four. Two are from shipbuilding interests. While they vary in respect of the anticipated use of the yards, especially in the short term, both envisage initial employment of about 200, rising to around 1,000 at some later date. Of the non-shipbuilding bids, one is concerned only with the Pallion yard; it envisages employing about 250 people initially—rising to 600 at a later date—on work connected with desalination projects, floating harbours and offshore oil equipment. The other envisages employment of 400 initially, rising to some 1,650 in three years, to manufacture a waste disposal system which has been demonstrated, but not yet exploited, in Canada.
The advice I have received from British Shipbuilders is balanced. In the case of what it regards as the better of the two shipbuilding bids, it notes the continued risk to secure long-term employment from the market and from levels of productivity achievable in the yard. Of what it regards as the better of the two non-shipbuilding bids, it says that it could represent the basis for a new and substantial manufacturing activity, but a number of important aspects require further elucidation before clear advice can be given on the prospects of secure employment.
The second factor, which I give particular weight, is the importance attached in Sunderland to the enterprise zone. When I visited the town again at the end of last month, following my statement of 7 June, I was given confirmation of the exceptionally high level of interest which the proposed zone had attracted, including that of many potential inward industrial investors. As a result, it was confidently expected to produce well over 3,000 jobs over the next five years, with perhaps another 1,000 to come from other elements in the remedial package. Everyone to whom I spoke emphasised their wish to press ahead with realising this opportunity and the need to remove any doubt or delay.
Thirdly, we have had to take account of the position under the sixth directive on state-aid to shipbuilding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—under which a variety of measures connected with British Shipbuilders, including the sale of certain assets, the anticipated closure of NESL

1145
and some aspects of the remedial package for Sunderland were notified to, and accepted by, the Commission at the turn of last year.
We have always made it clear in the House, and to the parties interested in purchasing the yards for shipbuilding, that the Commission would necessarily be interested in any material change in these arrangements, inevitably leading to uncertainty about the outcome. This uncertainty could only finally be resolved by a formal renotification, leading to a decision by the Commission as a whole. However, the soundings we have taken with the Commission suggest that they would be likely to insist on a procedure lasting some four to six months. The probable outcome would be for any prospective purchaser of NESL to have to shoulder a significant additional burden arising from past British Shipbuilders losses.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why? Under what law?
Mr. Newton: Moreover, it has been made clear that the Sunderland enterprise zone, which also required Commission consent, could be called into question.
Having carefully weighed all these considerations, our view is that the essential choice is clear: either the shipbuilding bids, which offer at best an uncertain prospect of fewer jobs than before in an industry which has always been subject to considerable insecurity or the vigorous and whole-hearted pursuit of the enterprise zone as planned, including the Southwick yard.
We have concluded that the latter course is the best in the long-term interests of Sunderland. Accordingly, I am asking British Shipbuilders, in consultation with the Tyne and Wear development corporation, to undertake further work with the existing bidders on the use of the assets for purposes other than shipbuilding with a view to making final recommendations about the future of the assets in due course. The establishment of the enterprise zone, and all other elements in the package of measures to promote enterprise and new jobs in Sunderland, will be pressed ahead with all possible vigour.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Is this not a shameful statement, about which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ought to feel duly ashamed? Does it not amount to the pronouncement of the death sentence on a major British industry? Has he not made it clear that the sentence has already been carried out—execution by ministerial incompetence? The death of British shipbuilding lies at his door, and should be on his conscience.
How is it, after commercially viable bids, acceptable to the vendors, for Europe's most advanced shipyards in Europe's leading maritime nation, by two European shipbuilders who need no subsidy, who want to build ships to take advantage of the upturn in world shipping, who will provide employment for hundreds and eventually, perhaps thousands of shipyard workers in an area of high unemployment, and who want to rebuild a strategic British industry, that the Chancellor can come to the House and say that those bids cannot proceed, and that the last remaining British merchant shipbuilding capacity must be extinguished? Is this not a nightmare in which reason and commercial logic have been stood on their heads?
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I agree.
Mr. Gould: Does it not fly in the face of his earlier assurances that bids that required no subsidy would meet no difficulties?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in a letter dated 8 February which he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), he said:
"Should any one wish to purchase some or all of the Sunderland facilities for shipbuilding without any form of assistance, that would entail only the negotiation with British Shipbuilders of acceptable terms for acquiring the facilities in question."?
Why do the British Government no longer have the power to allow those bids to proceed? Is it not a totally irrational response to the undoubted efforts of a world upturn in shipping, of which the commercially viable bids for the yards are further convincing evidence? Is not his representation of British Shipbuilders' attitude to the bids and his implication of a link between the decision he announced and the aid package to Sunderland simply an attempt to mask the fact that he totally failed to comprehend the situation and discovered only two days ago—too late, it seems—that the European Commission, having sanctioned his closure of the yards, was determined that they should not be reopened?
When the right hon. Gentleman has had written details of at least one offer since early April, why did it take him so long to discover what the Commission's attitude would be? Why did he wait until the end of June before raising these matters with the Commission? Even now, will he tell the Commission that he and his Government are not prepared to sit back and allow Britain, of all countries, to be reduced to a situation where it no longer has any major merchant shipbuilding capacity, when other European countries such as Italy and Spain retain such a capacity? Will he give an assurance that he will not break up the assets until the negotiations to which he refers have been concluded?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that British merchant shipbuilding has been denied, by his statement, the life-saving help that is on offer and has accordingly been left to die of the wounds which he has needlessly inflicted?
Mr. Newton: May I make two factual points in response to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)? There remains quite significant merchant shipbuilding capacity in Britain.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Where?
Mr. Newton: Well, including Harland and Wolff in Northern Ireland and a number of yards on the British mainland, including Swan Hunter, often in yards which carry out a great deal of military shipbuilding. The notion that there is some death sentence, as the hon. Member for Dagenham put it, on merchant shipbuilding in Britain, is extremely far-fetched. In conjunction with almost all European countries, Britain has suffered a large decline in merchant shipbuilding capacity over a decade or 20 years, leading to difficulties in recent years.
Let me turn to some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised about our dealings with the Commission. At every stage, we have sought to give the House, bidders and hon. Members the best possible assessment that we could of the position in relation to the directive as events have moved on. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) will wish to advert to that point.

1147
The letter that I wrote on 8 February, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said, refers to subsidised shipbuilding, and is quite clear about what the difficulties would be in respect of subsidised shipbuilding. The point at issue now is precisely how the question of subsidy will be interpreted by the Commission, and its likely response as proposals have been refined and hardened over the past few months.
Let me make one last point in response to the hon. Member for Dagenham. Immediately after the first bid was received on 6 April, the bid in which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North is particularly interested, an approach was made by officials to the Commission for indications of what the position would be.
On 11 April, it was immediately made clear to the bidders that any question of a bid involving intervention fund continuing subsidy would be likely to cause great difficulty, to put it mildly, and even without that there could be considerable difficulties. Within a week or so, the bidders came back with a bid which demonstrated that they would seek to manage without intervention fund, but in which many other details were lacking, and which took the Government some time to probe to make some assessment of whether it was a bid that we could sensibly put forward as a concrete proposal. At the same time, or a little later, in May, we received another shipbuilding bid, which also needed careful assessment.
Around the turn of May and in early June, we received definite bids for non-shipbuilding purposes. It seemed to me right, and it still seems to me right, to have undertaken a proper evaluation of all those bids alongside each other, rather than take an endlessly moving series of hypothetical questions to the Commission.
The first requirement was that the British Government should decide what was the sensible way forward. I emphasise that what we have done is weigh what we regard as the very uncertain prospects of creating sufficient secure employment with the shipbuilding bids against the advantages of pressing ahead full steam with the enterprise zone, with the possibility of a non-shipbuilding bid that may well in the end—I accept that further work on it is needed—prove to be a more attractive prospect for the use of the yards in providing secure employment in Sunderland.
Mr. Bob Clay: Is it not the simple truth, for all that the Minister is trying to get around it in the most disingenuous manner, that he made it clear, not only in the letter to me but in other letters and statements, that subsidy meant intervention fund money and that all these difficulties about which we are now being told would follow if bidders asked for intervention fund money? They were told not to ask for it. They forwent intervention fund money. At a late stage, months later, the Minister suddenly discovered when he went to speak to the Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, that all these difficulties existed, which the Commissioner claimed he should have known about from the start, from the time that he made the statements in the House last December.
Because of this complete incompetence, muddle and surrender to Brussels, without even making a formal notification of these proposals, and at a time when the market for ships is rising steeply, as the Minister knows, and when free enterprise operators—whom one would
1148
think the Government would welcome and bless—want to order ships immediately, have other orders to place and require no subsidy or state assistance, those people are having the door slammed in their faces. The people of Sunderland, especially the shipyard workers who have been made redundant and their families, have been treated in the most disgraceful way. I hope that the Minister at least feels, in his heart of hearts, that this is the most shameful day of his political life.
Mr. Newton: I do not, of course, accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said—
Mr. Clay: Well, the Minister should.
Mr. Newton: Of course, however, I understand the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feelings. I hope that he will at least accept that I have never sought to be, nor, in my view, have I been, disingenuous in the points that I have made to the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept, in what is undoubtedly a difficult balance of judgment, taking account of a variety of factors, that we have sought to come to the conclusion that offers those self-same people of Sunderland, about whom I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, the best prospect for new industries, expanding industries and jobs that will last in the long term.
Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall that some years ago a similar decision had to be taken by the Government with regard to the Brigg and Scunthorpe constituency where there was a steel problem? Was not the greatest decision for the benefit of my constituents in both Brigg and Scunthorpe then and Brigg and Cleethorpes now, the decision to ensure that an enterprise zone would be created? I advise my right hon. Friend to invite Labour Members to go to Scunthorpe, Glanford and Brigg to see the massive increase in investment, job diversification and employment that has resulted from the decision to create an enterprise zone in my constituency.
Mr. Newton: It certainly is the case that the experience of enterprise zones in transforming the prospects of areas that have lived with industries experiencing great structural decline has been very striking and encouraging indeed. One of the things that has contributed to the decision that I have announced today in respect of Sunderland, is that, by all accounts, the interest shown in the enterprise zone in Sunderland has been exceptional, even by the standards of earlier enterprise zones.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Minister accept that many people in Sunderland will feel betrayed by today's decision? For months his Department has perpetrated a cruel hoax not only on the people of Sunderland but on the enterprises that were bidding for the yards. The Department told us that unsubsidised ship offers would be seriously considered. Not one but two have emerged. We now learn that, because of a decision that was taken, probably at the end of December, they cannot now be considered.
People in Sunderland simply will not understand what is happening. The Minister seems only recently to have become aware of an understanding that his own Department reached some months ago. Why was the

1149
fiasco allowed to continue for so long if people in the Minister's Department knew that shipbuilding would never be allowed to resurface?
Will the Minister place in the Library of the House of Commons all communications with Brussels relating to this matter so that hon. Members can see it for themselves? Is it possible that the Minister was the only person in his Department who was not aware of the understanding that was reached as long ago as last December? We in Sunderland worked out a long time ago that such an understanding had obviously been reached. Will the Minister apologise to the people of Sunderland for the cruel hoax that has been perpetrated on them for so long?
Mr. Newton: There has been no question of a cruel hoax. The bids that have come forward have been evaluated and assessed in the context of what I have repeatedly emphasised at every stage since I took on these responsibilities a year ago—that the primary factor was what was likely to be best in the long-term interests of the people and the area of Sunderland. Having evaluated and assessed those bids against the alternatives, both the non-shipbuilding bids and the enterprise zone, we have come to the conclusion that I have outlined this afternoon. I feel no need to make an apology for that. I naturally regret, as I regretted last December, that at that stage it had not proved possible to find a way forward. What I do not regret is having to put to the House this afternoon a decision that I believe is in the best interests of the jobs and the future of industry in Sunderland.
Sir Giles Shaw: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will allow me to comment that, at best, this is a fairly lamentable episode—lamentable not wholly for the unjustified accusations that were flung at my right hon. Friend but for the way in which the shipbuilding directive, the intervention fund and the role of subsidy are now being interpreted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that my view is that we cannot have a regime that allows an industry to contract and yet is somehow incapable of expansion when the need for expansion occurs. Would it not be a reasonable outcome of this episode for my right hon. Friend to seek to renegotiate, or perhaps introduce another element into, the directive to allow a more orderly course for possible expansion should there be a need, as there is in many cyclical industries, which the private sector has detected, to fulfil a genuine demand?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that it necessarily follows from what I have said that the current directive, which will last until the end of 1990, is incapable of responding to a change in circumstances. We are considering the conditions in which such a change might take place against the background of what had been agreed earlier. There might be two views on the detail of that argunent, but that is a slightly different point. I can certainly undertake to my hon. Friend—he asked in a reasonable way—that we shall take account of all experience of operation of the current sixth directive when negotiating some successor directive, as will no doubt occur at some time in the next 18 months.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that the patient and dogged people of the north will share a sense of dismay at his statement, which means that industries that could have survived and, indeed, prospered are not to be allowed to do so? Does he
1150
also accept that what rubs salt in the wound is his reference to Swan Hunter when it, as part of another deal, was also prevented from ever having access to the intervention fund and had to struggle in the merchant shipbuilding market on its own?
Will the Minister tell the House with direct candour which will stick? Will a deal based on shipbuilding and ship conversion be acceptable, or is that, too, part of a cover-up, which leads us from the bluster of Bruges to the sale of our shipyards?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may have made a slip of the tongue when referring to shipbuilding and ship conversion. He may have meant ship repairing and ship conversion.
I cannot be optimistic at this stage about that possibility without an opportunity to consider in more detail its possible relationship with the wider situation in the directive that I described. For example, were there to be a proposal for ship repairing at North Sands, which is one of the possibilities that I understand has been floated, I would certainly be prepared to consider it, provided that I can be satisfied that it will not risk the adverse consequences to which I referred in my statement or conflict with the vigorous pursuit of the enterprise zone and the creation of alternative employment in Sunderland.
Mr. Neville Trotter: My right hon. Friend is known to have taken a great personal interest in trying to deal with the serious problems caused by the collapse of the yard in Sunderland. He must be aware of the strength of feeling about what has happened—that the almost miraculous prospect of the shipbuilding yard reopening has not come about.
Is the Minister aware that the relationship with Brussels is seen as a key factor in this? Does he agree that the long-term future of Sunderland lies with the enterprise zone and transformation to industries with a secure future? Are there not two odd facts about the bids that have been received from shipbuilders? Why were they not put forward while the yard was still open? Why did they wait until the yard closed, knowing that, in doing so, they would no longer get intervention fund money? Does that not put doubt into people's minds about whether there would have been a long-term significant future if the bids had gone ahead earlier?
Mr. Newton: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend said about how much better it would have been had either of the bids been put forward at a different time, when they could have been considered in a different context. As to how secure they would be, I said in my statement and probably also in some of my answers to supplementary questions that considerable doubt remains about the long-term security of the jobs that would be created if either of these bids were to proceed. That is one of the things that we have borne in mind when judging what my hon. Friend rightly says is the alternative, which is the pursuit of the creation of jobs in new and different industries, particularly through the enterprise zone, but also in other ways.
Ms. Joyce Quin: The Minister referred to the importance that the people of Sunderland attach to the enterprise zone. He did not refer to, but is he

1151
aware of the great importance that is attached in the town of Sunderland to keeping the shipyards open? That is the real feeling of the people of Sunderland.
Furthermore, instead of simply giving way to the European Commission, does the Minister consider that, in view of the reduction in capacity in British shipbuilding, and the fact that there are European bidders for the Sunderland yards, he should have made a strong case out to the Commission and been prepared to fight, if necessary, to keep the yards open?
Mr. Newton: There is no question of having given way to the Commission. We have to take account of a directive which, as part of the Community's policy to secure a level playing field on state aid to industry generally, is to be seen in the interests of this country.
As I said in my statement, I had to judge whether arguing these matters through was in the interests of what was, at best, an uncertain prospect for jobs in an industry which has been notoriously subject to cyclical swings, and over which there was therefore some doubt about the long-term security of jobs, to decide whether that was the right thing to do.
On balance, taking all the considerations together, I came to the conclusion that it was not, and that it was right to proceed full speed ahead with the alternatives including, most notably, the enterprise zone.
Mr. Richard Holt: As someone who was brought up in Sunderland, I appreciate that there will be strong feelings there today about the Government's decision, but as someone who represents a Teesside constituency, I must advise the House that a few years ago we were in the same position, but that today Teesside is booming and going ahead. Only today I received a press release from the international chemical company MTM, stating that it is investigating and evaluating a £50 million investment in Teesside, bringing with it 1,000 jobs. That is the way forward for the ex-shipbuilding areas.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made an important point about experience in another part of the north-east which I have also visited frequently. While, for obvious reasons, it is not possible for me at present to refer to some of the specific interests that have emerged in relation to the enterprise zone in Sunderland, I am confident that the experience that my hon. Friend reports from Teesside will be repeated in Sunderland and that that will be profoundly to the long-term benefit of the people of that area.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) invited the Minister to place the correspondence between himself and the EEC on intervention funding in the Library so that we could all have a look at it. Is his reluctance to do so because that correspondence would reveal a shoddy deal to sell out for all time any prospect of intervention funding for shipbuilding in the northern region so that he could gain the consent of the EEC bureaucracy for the quite different and far more advantageous arrangements that the Government have put in hand in Northern Ireland and for Harland and Wolff?
Mr. Newton: No, as far as we are aware, no link is being made between the Commission's consideration of the proposals on Harland and Wolff and those agreed at the turn of last year for British Shipbuilders. Harland and Wolff is not part of British Shipbuilders, it is a separate entity. Therefore, I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will stand up.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to say again that we have great pressure on time today. I appreciate hon. Members' interest and hope that I have called all those who have a direct interest. I shall allow two more questions from each side, and I am sorry that that will not include every hon. Member who wishes to ask a question.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While only time will tell whether the Sunderland people will do better out of making ships, hula-hoops, beefburgers or anything else, does the Minister acknowledge that there is a massive constitutional problem because a clear statement on which shipbuilders and others acted stated that, without intervention aid, the matter could be considered only by British Shipbuilders, but we now find that the Commission has redefined "aid" and insisted that any proposal must involve historic losses? Would it not be infinitely better for a Conservative Government in a free-market economy to leave such decision to the market and not to non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels? What powers were they using when they said that historic losses should be taken into account?
Mr. Newton: First, if my hon. Friend's initial point refers to the same letter that has been adverted to at various times during the past half hour, I remind him that it referred to subsidy in general rather than to intervention fund in particular. I have already referred to that on several occasions.
Secondly, I do not see anything unconstitutional in this country—in this case it happens to be within the framework of the Community, but it could equally well be within some international framework—signing an agreed set of rules that are designed to create a level playing field about state aid, for shipbuilding in this case, but which apply to state aids for other purposes as well—
Mr. Bob Cryer: They do not want state aids.
Mr. Newton: —including the motor car industry. The Commission is operating within the agreed terms of the sixth directive, to which this country was party.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Minister stop waffling to the House? If he is saying that he did not know last December, does he recall that he appeared before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on matters relating to North East Shipbuilders only in late June? Why did he not tell the Committee then that non-subsidised shipbuilding would not be allowed and that if it was allowed, the EEC would then reconsider all the subsidies paid to British shipbuilding? Why does he take such a weak, craven and pusillanimous attitude to the EEC? Will he go back to Brussels and speak for Britain and for British shipbuilding?
Mr. Newton: At every stage, I have given those who have asked me about these matters my best assessment on the information available to me at the time.
With regard to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can tell him that I have made it absolutely clear that the Government have made a judgment on the basis of a very wide range of factors. At the end of the day, the key issue for us—I would hope, too, for the House—is how we can best promote the largest number of long-term secure jobs in Sunderland. I believe that what I have announced today will achieve that.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable sympathy with and admiration for his difficult decisions? Can the people of Sunderland not take courage from what has happened to us in Wales, where structural unemployment has led to a considerable decline in the coal and steel industries, but where industry has diversified and many new jobs have been created? Can my right hon. Friend not draw comfort from the success of the Milford Haven enterprise zone in my constituency? In the town of Pembroke Dock, where there was very high unemployment in the past two and a half years we have seen 50 per cent. reduction in unemployment as a direct consequence of having an enterprise zone in the area.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend also for his example of the success of measures similar to those that we intend to press ahead in Sunderland. I have no doubt that it was knowledge of those experiences that led to the experience that I recounted, of being pressed very hard in Sunderland to ensure that nothing was done to impede the implementation and success of that enterprise zone.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister be a little more forthcoming about his reference to the Commission? It became clear from his statement that the Sunderland enterprise zone, which required Commission consent, could be called into question. Is he saying that in all the to-ing and fro-ing with the Commission, it has said that, if the Department of Trade and Industry pursued the bids, it would pull the plug on the enterprise zone?
Mr. Newton: To be precise, when I saw Commissioner Brit tan in Brussels, as part of our process of evaluating the bids and deciding what to do, it was made clear that the Commission could not rule out reopening the question of the enterprise zone, which it said it saw as related to the Sunderland package.

Honda (Investment)
4.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on a major Japanese inward investment project in the motor sector by Honda. Since shortly after its return to full private ownership last year, Rover has been discussing with Honda how best to strengthen each other's position in Europe. One element in those discussions has been Honda's site at Swindon, which has already been developed for engine manufacture. I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming today's announcement that Honda is to extend that facility to full manufacture of cars for the European market. The new plant will add some 1,300 jobs to Honda's existing work force at Swindon, as well as providing additional opportunities for Rover Group's own Swindon facility, from which it will source pressings. The project will involve additional investment of around £300 million, and no financial assistance has been requested.
The plant is scheduled to commence manufacture at the end of 1991, with a limited volume of Honda cars. That will be in direct substitution for imports from Japan. One year later, a full range of production operations will start, with output rising rapidly to 100,000 cars per annum in 1994; that will include cars built for Rover. Rover will continue to build cars for Honda at Longbridge. Honda has indicated its wish to achieve the maximum commercially feasible level of local content throughout the project and it is its firm intention to reach an 80 per cent. level within 18 months of the start of full commercial operations.
The companies have now decided to cement their partnership through significant minority cross-shareholdings between Honda's United Kingdom manufacturing company and Rover Group. They believe that that will have important commercial benefits for both companies. We see it as a vote of confidence by Honda in the United Kingdom and in the Rover Group, and a tribute to the efforts of Rover's management and work force in restructuring that company to meet the exacting standards of today's market place.
We are confident that today's announcement amounts to a further step in the renaissance of the United Kingdom motor industry, ensuring that it will play a significant role in the European market of the 1990s. I commend it to the House.
Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that we would not have has this modest statement but for the bitter pill of the preceding one? The Department of Trade and Industry has contributed absolutely nothing to the deal.
Will he confirm that the cross-shareholding between Rover and Honda UK is 20 per cent? Why has the Minister not told the House that that is what it is? How could that be fair to Rover? What valuation would that place on Rover?
Is the Minister aware that we welcome Japanese inward investment so long as it is complementary to our indigenous manufacturing capacity and not destructive of it? In that regard, what are the implications of the agreement for Rover Group's employment at Longbridge

1155
and at Cowley and, in particular, for the collaborative ventures that the two companies have already entered into on the R8, R9 and Rover 8000 model? Will those ventures still go ahead, or will they be overtaken by today's announcement? What does the Minister expect the impact to be on the output and employment prospects of other car manufacturers in Britain?
When the Minister speaks of 80 per cent. local content, I assume that he means European Economic Community content. Could he tell us what the British percentage content will be? Will it include such key components as transmission and electronics? Will research, development and design be carried out at Swindon or back at the headquarters in Japan?
What sign is there that France, Italy and Spain will be willing to remove their obstacles to Japanese car imports from Britain without further undertakings? What is his response to their argument that the British motor manufacture industry is becoming a Japanese offshore island?
In view of the so-called renaissance of the British motor industry to which the Minister referred, when does he expect us to have a trade surplus in motor vehicles? For how much longer will there be a British-owned motor manufacturing industry?
Mr. Atkins: It really is extraordinary that, when I come to the House and make a statement that is wonderful good news for the motor industry and for Swindon in particular, all that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) can do is make snide remarks about colonisation —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the questions."] I will come to the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed. It is right and proper, however, that my hon. Friends and I should record our disgust at the way in which this particular announcement of good news has been approached by the Opposition.
I remind the House, in case the Opposition are unaware of it, that this announcement represents the third major inward investment coup in the motor sector of the United Kingdom. It follows on from Nissan and Toyota—now we have Honda. That means that about £1·8 billion of investment in the United Kingdom has created about 8,250 jobs directly, and at least as many again in the supply industry. All that the hon. Member for Norwich, South can do is complain about that. He calls that "modest". I do not call it modest; I call it a substantial contribution to our economy and deservedly so.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, first about the 80 per cent. content. The 80 per cent. content will be British content obviously, as that is what we committed ourselves to in the past. We anticipate that that will be the case again. [Interruption.] Built within the EEC. That 80 per cent. is deemed to be British, built within the EEC. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that was the case with Nissan—80 per cent. was made in Britain within the EEC. [Interruption.] It is quite straightforward. There is no question or argument about it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cross-shareholding. The details of the agreement are not yet available, as they are commercially confidential, but we anticipate that the hon. Gentleman's figure will probably be about right. It will be a cross-shareholding—[interruption] The hon. Gentleman posed a question and I am seeking to answer
1156
it. He suggested that there was a cross-shareholding of 20 per cent. We do not know the final details yet, but that sort of figure will probably be the end result. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that in the spirit that it is rendered. The terms of the agreement will obviously be confidential until such time as the companies concerned announce them. That is right and proper, since Rover Group is now in the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman asked about jobs at Longbridge. We understand from Rover Group that, as a result of the agreement, there is unlikely to be any effect upon jobs at Longbridge. The hon. Gentleman also asked about Cowley. He will be aware that, within the corporate plan of Rover Group, it has said that Cowley is one of those areas that is being looked at. Nothing changes as a result of the agreement that is being negotiated between Honda and Rover Group.
I believe that I have covered the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will appreciate that my hon. Friends will take an entirely different view from his of this excellent news.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend agree that it was virtually inconceivable before 1979 that Great Britain would have been chosen by what is probably the world's leading motor manufacturing company as the site for its investment in the EEC? I might add that it also would have been inconceivable before we joined the EEC. Is my hon. Friend not as shocked as I am that the sole reaction from Opposition Members is to try to show that, in some way, it is discreditable that a foreign company should be investing large sums in British industry and bringing jobs to Britain? I find that deplorable. Does my hon. Friend share that feeling?
Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend, speaking with the authority of his former position within the Department of Trade and Industry, knows exactly how important this deal is in relation to the past, present and future of the motor industry. I suspect, as he has pointed out, that many people within the country, particularly in the area of Swindon where the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is so beneficially affected, will take note of the churlish attitude of the Opposition in the way in which they have responded to the excellent news.
Mr. Andrew Smith: The Minister called this good news, but is it good news for Cowley? Is it not disgraceful that his statement and the company handout at the Cowley plant this afternoon made no reference to Cowley? Does he not understand that Cowley workers will ask the same question as I do—what implications does the agreement hold for Cowley? What is its future in this? Why put the investment and plant 25 miles down the road at Swindon when there is a perfectly good plant at Cowley with an excellent record of productivity, quality and industrial relations?
Does the company not owe it to the workers at Cowley and the Government to spell out what the agreement means to those workers? Will the 100,000 vehicles be in addition to Rover production, in which case surely they will be competing with them, or is the reality that those vehicles will displace production from other centres, most notably Cowley? Unless I hear some contradictory statement from the Minister, the conclusion at Cowley will be that his doom-laden words spell its death sentence.
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes comments about Cowley as he is entitled to do as it falls within his constituency, but he will recognise that this agreement has been carried out between two independent companies about what they see is best for their future. It is something for them to decide. We have been party to the agreement of intent between Honda and the Rover Group. That is why we are involved. There is no link between what is proposed here and the future of Cowley south.
The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous. I do not think that he is serving his constituents' interests by taking the attitude that he does, but perhaps it is because his attitude towards cars is summed up by his question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport earlier this week, when he suggested that the relentless increase in car use was something to be deplored. I find that an astonishing remark to come from that hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Smith: What I said, Mr. Speaker, was that—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that Honda is already a valued member of the industrial community of Swindon and that today's news will be warmly welcomed in the town? Will he pay tribute to the current work force of Honda in Swindon and the work force of the Rover Group plant at Stratton in Swindon? It is clearly as a result of their efforts that the company has made the decision which my hon. Friend has announced this afternoon.
Will my hon. Friend make representations to his other hon. Friends in the Departments of Transport, Employment and Environment so that today's good news is not spoiled by difficulties of transport infrastructure—because clearly there will be major movements of goods in and out of the plant in the future—the provision of visas for foreign nationals whose jobs will bring them to Honda in the future and of the need to train the work force in a town with an unemployment rate of less than 3·5 per cent.? Will he speak to his hon. Friends at the Department of Environment, because we do not need planning holdups when we try to put this good news into practice? Can my hon. Friend confirm that 80 per cent. local content must, under the rules of the European Commission, be European local content—
Mr. Bryan Gould: He said British.
Mr. Coombs: —and will he make sure that as much as possible of that local sourcing will be United Kingdom-based?
Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, as always, speaks strongly for his constituents' interests, and he is right to draw attention to the fact that it is largely because of the work, commitment and enthusiasm of his constituents and those working within the Swindon operation that Honda has decided to expand in this area. I shall certainly pursue, as 1 know he will, the points he made about my hon. Friends in other Departments, who have interests in relation to Swindon's infrastructure.
As for local content, I shall clarify the position so that the House knows exactly what it is. I shall state it as categorically as I can. The 80 per cent. local content
1158
required by our agreement is within the EEC, but will be British-based. We shall encourage British component companies and Honda to utilise—
Mr. Gould: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Atkins: That is exactly what I said.
Mr. Gould: No, it is not.
Mr. Atkins: In which case, I apologise if there has been a misunderstanding. If it was on my part, as I made the comment, I shall withdraw it unreservedly. It is crucial to make clear that it is 80 per cent. EEC content and we shall endeavour to ensure that that 80 per cent. will be British. In view of what the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said about the colonisation of the motor industry by Japan, it is worth putting on the record the fact that it is Honda's intention, as it has been that of many other companies investing in the motor industry in this country, that that content shall be as British as possible.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Opposition always welcome jobs in manufacturing, in view of the 2 million jobs which have gone since 1979 under the present Tory Government. Will there be a continuing and developing design and development input from the United Kingdom into this plant, or has the hon. Gentleman merely announced a screwdriver assembly job? I am pleased that the Minister has clarified the confusion and stated that the local content means EEC-wide, not United Kingdom-based.
Since the hon. Gentleman intends to help United Kingdom manufacturers, how will he help a firm such as Hepworth and Grandage, the biggest piston manufacturer in the United Kingdom, to ensure that it has an opportunity to supply pistons to this new assembly plant and maintain and improve its excellent production capacity? Are the Japanese able to invest heavily in design and development and so be extremely successful in industrial manufacturing because they put their investment into goods and services which people want, instead of investing, as this country does, in nuclear weapons and defence expenditure?
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, has covered a wide variety of questions in his remarks. Research and development is a matter for the companies to decide. They have indicated that they will manufacture cars in Britain which will be exported abroad or used within the domestic market. We have no indications, and would not expect any, to suggest that the company concerned, along with the other two major manufacturers from Japan which invest in this country—Toyota and Nissan—will do the same. The decisions must be made by the companies, which we anticipate will be as successful now as in the past.
Sir Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that this project should be warmly welcomed for the contribution it will make to our balance of payments deficit, running at £6 billion per annum; that, with this investment, we can once again look forward to budding 2 million cars a year in this country; and that the cross-shareholdings represent an outside investment in the Rover Group which is a tribute to what that company has achieved and an assurance that Rover will continue to make cars for Honda? What better endorsement could we wish for?
Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, with his considerable authority as chairman of the all-party committee, sums up the matter succinctly. I can do no better than add my support to that.
Mr. John Hughes: How can the Minister fail to understand the mistrust of the House when it is aware that deals have been done—in fact, cooked—to get over the cash flow problems of British Aerospace? Will this deal allow Honda to exploit the research and design centre at Coventry? Will it pose a threat to jobs at Coventry, as it has to other companies such as Royal Enfield, which lost 1,200 jobs from a similar deal?
Mr. Atkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This is an investment for the motor industry; as he has heard from my statement, the matter is one between Honda and the Rover Group, and does not involve anyone else other than, to a limited extent, British Aerospace, which owns Rover Group. As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, this matter relates specifically to the motor industry.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the greater threat to Cowley south stems, as he indicated, from a quote in column 673 of last Monday's Hansard, in which the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said:
"Does he accept that the way to tackle the"—[Official Report, 10 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 673]—
Mr. Andrew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This does not relate to the statement.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can stick to the subject of the statement, not go on to other issues.
Mr. Hayward: Is there any threat to any other part of the Rover plant, including Oxford and Longbridge, as a result of my hon. Friend's statement?
Mr. Atkins: Largely, these matters are for those at the Rover Group and Honda. Broadly speaking, we do not anticipate that there will be any deleterious effects on those parts of the Rover Group, as presently constituted.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister's phrase "local content" include transmission and electronics?
Mr. Atkins: "Local content" refers to any aspect of components which go into a motor vehicle.
Mr. Tim Smith: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, between 1974 and 1979, the proportion of motor cars imported into the United Kingdom doubled, since when the proportion has remained static, and that, with the announcement of these three major investments by the Japanese, there is now every prospect of reducing that proportion? Is not today's announcement the best possible news for UK Ltd.?
Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Points of Order
4.58 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were in the Chair today when a number of us were trying to catch your eye during questions to the Leader of the House. Is it not time that the Government recognised that if you, in your wisdom, feel that you must curtail our rights as Back Benchers to ask the Leader of the House about matters relating to next week's business the Government should curtail their practice of making statements on Thursday? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Our rights are being directly interfered with.
A number of my colleagues were called—I accept that you work these matters out scrupulously fairly—and a number of people wanted to raise issues today relating to next week's business, particularly as we are approaching the end of the Session. We were prevented from doing so because you felt the Government had to be given time for this statement. I understand that the next business is important, but all business which comes on to the Floor of the House of Commons is important. It is quite wrong that we should be prevented from raising issues. A number of my colleagues were here, and I know that they are all equally concerned.
Mr. James Lamond: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Well, it does delay matters.
Mr. Lamond: This offence is compounded by the fact that the second statement concerned a matter with which the Government have told us they had nothing to do. Good news or not, one wonders whether it was necessary to make a statement of that length on a Thursday about a matter in which the Government are not concerned.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be easier if I dealt with this matter. I am the first to appreciate the importance of business questions because they enable hon. Members who have not been called during the week to put a question to the Leader of the House. However, I also have to judge business questions against business which will come before the House later. The whole House knows that today we have an important debate before us, to which a great many
1162
right hon. and hon. Members want to make a contribution. I am sorry that I had to curtail business questions, but I did manage to call the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) during the statement, and I also called the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) during business questions—so what is the validity of this point of order?
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a point of order—not because I was not called, but because several other hon. Members were not.
I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, suggest to the Government when they approach you about statements that they should organise them on days other than Thursday. Of course, sometimes we want statements and the Government are rather parsimonious about making them, which makes us suspicious of their reasons for making two on a Thursday. As you know, every Thursday 50 or 60 hon. Members seek to catch you eye to raise matters of interest. I know that you realise that business questions are an important tradition and an opportunity to raise a matter on the Floor of the House, so I hope that you will bear that in mind when the Government apply to make a statement.
Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In addition to what my hon. Friends have said, I suggest with the greatest respect that it is a dangerous innovation for you to limit business questions. I was grateful to be called, but if the Government believe that you will adopt this line, that will encourage them to table a number of statements which, in effect, will enable them to veto business questions. That would veto the rights of Back Benchers and the time available to them in a dangerous and unacceptable way.
Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it help? The hon. Member was also called, and he is also hoping to be called in the next debate.
Mr. Wells: I wanted to be helpful, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you would like me to observe that those who complain most are those whom you most frequently call.
Mr. Speaker: That is helpful.
I say to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that it is certainly not an innovation to curtail business questions. It is probably true that I have allowed them to go on rather longer during my speakership than did some of my predecessors, for the very reasons that hon. Members will appreciate, but that cannot happen every time. I am sorry that 1 had to curtail them today.

China and Hong Kong
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Foreign Secretary, I must tell the House again that 36 right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. Sadly, because of the late start, they will not all be called. I intend to limit speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm to 10 minutes, and if those who are called before 7 will bear that limit in mind, many more of their colleagues will be able to participate.
5.4 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I reported to the House on my visit to Hong Kong. The exchanges which followed that statement reflected the very deep concern felt by all hon. Members about the future of the territory in the wake of the recent horrific events in Peking. Very important questions are at issue here, and it is right that they should be fully aired in this House. The Government accordingly welcome this opportunity for further debate.
The House has before it the report on Hong Kong of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for its report. The Government's formal response will issue in due course. The House will share my view that that report addresses our concerns, and those of the people of Hong Kong, seriously and comprehensively.
We are all conscious of Britain's historic responsibility for Hong Kong's future, and of our obligation to act with vigour and determination in fulfilment of that responsibility. We have never sought to shirk that obligation. Indeed, we were guided by it when first we took the decision to enter into negotiations with the Chinese about the future of Hong Kong.
By treaty, 92 per cent. of the area of Hong Kong reverts to China in 1997. The remaining 8 per cent. could never be viable on its own. After 18 months of tough negotiation, it became clear that the Chinese Government were not willing to contemplate the continuation of British administration beyond 1996, so we set ourselves the task —with the support of the people of Hong Kong—of securing alternative arrangements which would maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and the freedoms and way of life of its people.
The agreement that we reached—the Joint Declaration was widely recognised at the time, in Hong Kong, in this House and around the world, as the very best that could be arrived at in the circumstances. It was not an agreement imposed on Hong Kong, but one which the Executive and Legislative Councils were each able firmly to commend to the people of the territory. Under it, Hong Kong will have its own Government comprising Hong Kong people, not people brought in from China; the Socialist system and Socialist policies will not be imposed on Hong Kong from China; nor will Hong Kong pay taxes to China. Hong Kong's capitalist system and its way of life will continue, with all its human rights and freedoms, its laws and its legal system, its own freely convertible currency, its financial markets, its free port. None of that will change.
Hong Kong will conduct its own relations with other countries on matters such as trade, culture and civil aviation, and be able to conclude agreements on those
1164
subjects. It will continue to participate in international organisations as it does today. Entry into Hong Kong from China will continue to be regulated as at present, so that Hong Kong will not be flooded by immigrants from the mainland. By contrast, Hong Kong people will remain free to come and go as they please. Public order will be the responsibility of the Government of Hong Kong, as it is today. It is plainly provided that any Chinese military forces stationed in Hong Kong will not interfere in internal matters. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
The Joint Declaration was—and is—a good agreement, and the people of Hong Kong continue so to regard it. That was confirmed by the Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils in the statement which it circulated to Members of this House on 16 June. Indeed it described it as a "triumph of diplomacy". The declaration is accepted on all sides as the basis for all that now needs to be done to rebuild confidence in Hong Kong and, in particular, to strengthen the Basic Law in which the provisions of the declaration are to be given legal effect.
I do not in any way seek to minimise the anxieties of Hong Kong people about the future. It was precisely to address those anxieties honestly and directly that I took the earliest possible opportunity to visit the territory after the events of 3 and 4 June. The Joint Declaration is, as I said during that visit, a text for the bad times as well as for the good. Events in China have not invalidated it, nor altered the assumptions on which it was based—on the contrary.
What is lacking today, and what must be restored, is confidence—and confidence that China will honour the agreement after 1997. That confidence has been gravely shaken. It certainly cannot be restored overnight. It will take time and effort. That is why China's attitude in the coming months and years will be of such crucial importance. China has reiterated her own commitment to the Joint Declaration, and we welcome that, but more—much more—will be needed to regain the trust of people in Hong Kong. There must be concrete steps to provide reassurance to the people of Hong Kong—steps that will need to be continued and reinforced over the months and years ahead. Once again, there are signs that the Chinese Government realise this. They must now act accordingly.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Joint Declaration, and the treaty registered by it in the United Nations, for the first time gives a treaty base—recognised and signed by China—for the future of Hong Kong?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I hope that he and the House will forgive me if I do not give way as I customarily do. I have had the opportunity to answer questions on this matter for three and a half hours in the House, and to answer my hon. Friend in the Select Committee for about six hours. If I am allowed to continue my speech I shall come to what the Select Committee said.
As we have always recognised, and as the Select Committee said in terms,
"it is not possible to provide absolute guarantees for Hong Kong's future".
One feature has always been identified as providing some real assurance in that respect. That is the natural self-interest of China itself. It plainly must be in the interests of the Chinese Government—any Chinese

1165
Government—to sustain the success of Hong Kong and to do so in the only way that it can be done—on the basis of the Joint Declaration and the principle of one country, two systems.
For our part, Her Majesty's Government of course accept the need to formulate policy, to take action so as to offer further assurance to the people of Hong Kong, to strengthen their confidence in the future. First, as I told the House on 5 July, a Bill of Rights for Hong Kong will be introduced as soon as possible. The Joint Declaration already states that the international covenants as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force after that date. The draft Basic Law reflects this in article 39. These are very worthwhile achievements but, understandably, the people of Hong Kong are looking for more, and the Government accept their concerns. The proposed Bill of Rights will ensure that there is one fundamental legal text which sets out all the rights and freedoms that the people of Hong Kong currently enjoy. In 1997 it will form part of the existing law and will continue after the transfer of sovereignty in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Declaration.
Secondly, we shall firmly and painstakingly persist, in all the ways that are open to us, in making an effective input into the drafting of the Basic Law. The Basic Law drafting process is at present in suspense. The Chinese have said that they intend to prolong the present consultative period. In considering the further timetable for promulgation of the final text, the Chinese should give full weight to the need to produce a Basic Law which commands the widest possible support in Hong Kong, and to the need for sufficient time in which to produce it. That should take priority over all other considerations. I urge the Hong Kong people, and in particular those who have the opportunity to serve on the Basic Law drafting committee, to take full advantage of every opportunity to express their views so as to ensure that the draft is further improved.
When the drafting process is resumed, our priority will be—as it has been all along—to see that the Basic Law conforms fully with the spirit as well as the letter of the Joint Declaration. As co-signatories of the Joint Declaration, it is our right to insist upon that point. Moreover, getting the Basic Law right—and being seen to do so—will have a crucial effect on confidence in the run-up to 1997. If it is to boost confidence, it will need to meet the specific concerns that have been expressed about the current draft. I will give one or two examples.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has drawn attention to the very real anxieties about article 18 of the draft Basic Law. In its present form, this could enable the central Government in Peking to declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong after 1997. As I said to the House on 5 July, this is one matter that we are taking up with the Chinese authorities. In our discussions with them about the Basic Law, before the drafting process was suspended, we had already impressed upon them the need for this article to be very tightly defined. Following the events in Peking, this provision is now of even greater concern. It is clear that at the very least the special administrative region Government of Hong Kong will have to be directly and closely involved in any decision as to whether or not a state of emergency has arisen. As the Select Committee has also recommended, article 157 of the draft Basic Law, which
1166
deals with interpretation, will need to be carefully reconsidered. There are genuine worries about this article in Hong Kong and a way must be found to allay them.
Another very important concern, to which the Foreign Affairs Committee drew attention, is that of the stationing in Hong Kong of Chinese military forces. This goes to the heart of the fears of people in Hong Kong about their future. That is why we negotiated long and hard to secure agreement to the principle that Hong Kong would be responsible for its own internal security after 1997. and we achieved that objective. The provision is there, in annex one (section 12) of the joint declaration. The Hong Kong police force is being expanded to enable it to take on this role.
Nevertheless, the horrific events of 3 and 4 June have undoubtedly greatly intensified concern in Hong Kong on this point. We shall therefore be doing all that we ca .n to bring home to the Chinese Government the fact that their deeds as well as their words will be of fundamental importance. On this issue, the Chinese should not lose the opportunity to send a clear message of reassurance to Hong Kong's people. The question was already under active discussion in the Joint Liaison Group. The work of the group is, for the moment, suspended, but the group will continue to have the key role in ensuring the implementation of the Joint Declaration. No one in Hong Kong would dispute that the Joint Liaison Group will need to meet again before long, with this issue at the top of the agenda.
The next issue with which I wish to deal has already commanded a good deal of attention in the House—the development of representative government. It is an issue which requires the most careful and considered judgment. The Government therefore noted with particular interest what the Foreign Affairs Committee had to say on the subject. We agree with the Select Committee that the views of Hong Kong people on this matter are of crucial importance. We have always sought to base our policy on the principle that the pace of development should reflect the wishes of the whole community.
The unanimous view expressed by OMELCO on 24 May was a very significant step towards the establishment of a consensus in Hong Kong. After the events of 3 and 4 June, we must seek to determine how far that consensus now extends. It would be wrong for us to seek to anticipate that study, but it is already clear that the Hong Kong Government will need to reconsider their present plans for the elections in 1991.
My visit to Hong Kong left me in no doubt about the importance of another major issue—the prospect that emigration from the territory, particularly but not only by well-qualified professionals and middle managers, will increase. Everything that has been achieved in Hong Kong has been built on the energy and ability of its people, so the emigration of talent is a matter of great concern. The House accepts, and I hope that the people of Hong Kong will come to understand, that the answer to this problem cannot be found in the prescription most frequently pressed in Hong Kong—the granting of an open-ended right of abode to all British dependent territories citizens in the territory. It is seen as an insurance policy, but unlike any other such policy it is an insurance policy on which claims could be made by all the potential beneficiaries at any time. The practical difficulties of absorbing hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of people make that impossible to contemplate. It would be wrong to raise

1167
expectations that we could not possibly meet. I do not believe that the House would support such a departure from the immigration policies pursued by successive British Governments since the early 1960s.
Nevertheless, it is surely right that we should do what we can to sustain in those people on whom the success and prosperity of Hong Kong significantly depends the confidence to remain. Their continued presence in the territory benefits everyone living there. If they lose faith in the future, all of Hong Kong will suffer. That is why we are working urgently on a scheme which will make some provision for people in both the private and public sectors on the basis of value of service to Hong Kong, as well as connections with Britain. New legislation may be necessary. Our response will be as generous as it can be, within the inevitable constraints.
Our objective will be to devise a scheme which is as open and fair as possible, consistent with the overriding aim of encouraging people whose service is of value to Hong Kong to remain there. That applies to those involved in the administration of Hong Kong—and not exclusively at the senior levels, and to those whose professional, technical, entrepreneurial and managerial skills are essential to helping Hong Kong to remain prosperous and stable. It also applies to those in particularly sensitive posts. A further, more detailed announcement will be made as soon as possible.
The international community at large has an important interest in Hong Kong's continuing success as a major financial and commercial centre. In our contacts with our partners and friends, we are emphasising that they, too —as democracies, and as major trading partners—have a role to play in sustaining confidence in the territory. We shall be making this point at the economic summit in Paris this weekend.
I was most interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) had to say on this subject over the weekend. Clearly we must distinguish between two distinct factors, which the Select Committee report identified. The first is the immediate need to reinforce confidence in Hong Kong. We hope that the scheme to which I referred will make an important contribution to that. The international community can help in that respect by making it clear that they continue to have confidence in the future of Hong Kong and in the Joint Declaration.
The second distinct factor is the action that might and should be taken in the case of some fundamental and overwhelming violation of the Joint Declaration. That is obviously something that we are all hoping to avoid and working to prevent, but we cannot, in all prudence, ignore the possibility. The people of Hong Kong need to be given the strongest possible assurance that, should the worst come to the worst, there would be help for those in need of a home of last resort. That reassurance would be greatly strengthened by a wide international acknowledgement that this is a problem with which no one country alone could cope. I have already discussed the issue with a number of Foreign Ministers. The House will have noted what Prime Minister Mulroney of Canada said in London on Tuesday, 11 July:
"We should all be ready to co-operate with the United Kingdom in the delicate and important task of re-establishing grounds for confidence among the people of Hong Kong that
1168
their territory has a secure, viable and democratic future well beyond 1997. The problem of Hong Kong is not only and just a problem for the United Kingdom. The problem of Hong Kong and its security and well being is a problem for the world."
Sir Russell Johnston: Before the Foreign Secretary leaves this central and important issue, will he say a word about the views of the governor of Hong Kong, which he has not yet mentioned? I think that it would be fair to say that the governor would not altogether go along with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The governor's views—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, were quite properly expressed to the Select Committee—have been taken into account both by the Government and by the Select Committee in reaching our conclusions. I wish to take this opportunity once again to pay tribute to the distinguished way in which the governor carries such a formidable burden upon his shoulders.
The task of turning the general concern of civilised nations into an explicit willingness at some future date to contemplate receiving people from Hong Kong is not something that can be easily achieved; it certainly cannot be achieved overnight. Over the coming weeks and months we shall be using every opportunity to raise the issue with our partners and friends.
The growing problem of human migration is one of the starkest and most intractable of our time. It has manifested itself most acutely within Hong Kong in the presence of almost 50,000 Vietnamese boat people. I told the House last week of the measures being taken to tackle this problem effectively and humanely. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will respond further to points on that issue in his closing speech.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that physical force will not be used to compel those unfortunate men, women and children to return to a Communist country from which they have spent most of their lives trying to escape?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The balance of the argument in that respect was set out in my statement last week. It was also dealt with in the report of the Geneva conference. My hon. Friend will recollect the conclusion that for those who do not qualify as refugees there is no prospect of passing through Hong Kong to a future somewhere in the remainder of the world which cannot and does not exist. In those circumstances, the entire balance of argument must point in the direction of trying to secure their return to their own land. That was the view expressed by the Geneva conference, and we must lend all our efforts to that end.
Our deep, immediate and continuing anxiety for Hong Kong is inevitably linked to our wider concern about the course of events in China. The House, the Government and the British people have repeatedly condemned the Chinese Government's blatant and reckless use of force against unarmed civilians. In common with other countries, we have concluded that business as usual cannot and should not be sustained in present circumstances. China must be left in no doubt as to the damage that her international reputation has suffered, but in our response we must have clearly in mind what we want to achieve. We want a secure future for Hong Kong and we want China

1169
to return to the path of genuine reform. Neither the international community, nor the Chinese people—nor, in particular, the people of Hong Kong—will gain if China is driven into inward-looking isolation.
It was with those considerations in mind that I announced a package of specific measures in my statement to the House on 6 June. Those steps have been paralleled by other Western countries. The Madrid European Council on 27 June agreed a set of measures reflecting those already taken by some partners, including the United Kingdom. The United States, Japan and others have adopted mutually reinforcing measures of their own. All are intended to bring home to the Chinese authorities the extent of our common concern.
However, in the interest not least of the people of Hong Kong, channels of communication must remain open. That was the clear view expressed when I was there last week. Hong Kong does not—indeed, cannot—wish to isolate China, and neither should we. For that reason, the Government do not accept the argument that we should impose blanket trade sanctions on China. Such measures have never worked in the past. They would be damaging to the Chinese people, for whom we have great respect, and with whom we wish to build a closer friendship, and they would be immediately damaging to Hong Kong, which has an enormous stake in China's economic development.
China and Hong Kong are each other's largest trading partner. Hong Kong provides nearly a third of China's foreign exchange earnings and two-thirds of her foreign investment. Sanctions would tend inevitably to drive the Chinese into a corner and would put a severe brake on the economic reform process which gives hope to the Chinese people for the future. Therefore, in common with the American Government, the Japanese and our EC partners, we do not intend to stand in the way of normal commercial dealings. For the time being, however, we have postponed consideration of concessional financing arrangements for new projects in China under the aid and trade provision. We are also suspending decisions on additional ECGD cover for China.
I told the House yesterday that the exhibition "British Expo: China 89" due to open in Peking in November has been postponed. The House will also be aware that the World Bank has deferred consideration of new loans to China, in view of the current economic uncertainty there. Those are all reasons for the Chinese authorities to demonstrate that they intend to stay on the path of economic reform and openness—an essential element of which must, as the European Council noted on 27 June, be respect for human rights.
At the end of the day, China will choose its own destiny, but measured and consistent expressions of concern from the international community about Chinese political repression can and will have a significant impact. Nowhere is that prospect more important than in Hong Kong, for Hong Kong's future must inevitably lie with China. The members of OMELCO, in their statement of 19 June, said:
"We are Chinese and proud of it".
However, they equally and rightly insist that Hong Kong's way of life is, and should remain, distinct. That is the essence of the assurance of "One country, two systems". The interests which led China freely to accept that undertaking remain as valid today as they were when the undertaking was given. If anything, they are stronger. In the economic sphere, it is no longer just a question of
1170
foreign exchange—millions of people in the neighbouring province of Guangdong are directly employed by Hong Kong enterprises.
China must recognise that her actions have damaged confidence in Hong Kong and that she has a vital role in repairing that damage. We have already been transmitting that message to the Chinese Government and we shall continue to do so. In the same spirit, and to the same end, it would, I think, be right for us to take advantage of any sensible opportunities that may arise for contacts for that purpose between Ministers with responsibility for Hong Kong.
For almost 150 years, Britain has administered Hong Kong with fairness, justice and dedication. We have forged a unique partnership between Britain and the territory's Chinese inhabitants. That partnership has survived many tests and has gone from strength to strength. The last eight years of British administration which lie ahead will pose new and difficult challenges, but our commitment to the people of Hong Kong will be as strong as ever. Her Majesty's Government will strive with all their energy to achieve a secure and succesful future for Hong Kong and its people.
5.29 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Foreign Secretary has referred to his visit to Hong Kong and, as he will know, last month, through the courtesy of the Hong Kong Office, I was able to go there too. During my visit, an Air Force helicopter flew me along the border between the New Territories and the People's Republic of China. Almost immediately below I saw the forest of skyscrapers that is the Chinese city of Shenzhen.
A year ago, I was in Shenzhen and marvelled at the dynamism which had created that burgeoning and booming commercial centre in such a short period. Like others who at that time had the opportunity of visiting China, I was profoundly encouraged not only by the economic progress that China is making but, even more, by the implications for political liberalisation of that economic progress. I was able to discuss with Chinese officials the optimistic prospects for economic links between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, of which the Foreign Secretary has just spoken—such a tiny distance separating them; economic links both before and after 1 July 1997.
Now, sadly, it is impossible to use the word "optimistic" in relation to Hong Kong. The natural misgivings of the people of that territory about the unknown factors in the impending transfer to China had been alleviated by the positive achievement of the Joint Declaration of 1984 and the progress made since in drafting the Basic Law—progress involving genuine consultation between China and the people of Hong Kong. Now, developments in China, and especially the massacres in Peking, followed by the stream of executions since then, have made Hong Kong wary about how much it can trust the Peking regime to adhere to the Joint Declaration.
That is why, just as I did, the Foreign Secretary will have heard during his visit to Hong Kong from representatives of the people there—none of them, I am afraid, directly elected; that is something for which the Labour party when in government must bear responsibility with the Conservative party when in government—about safeguards for which they are looking in the period

1171
before the Basic Law is completed and before it goes forward for enactment by the National People's Congress of the Chinese People's Republic.
Many of those safeguards are considered in the report on Hong Kong of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which was published the week before last. As I shall explain, I do not agree with all that report's conclusions and recommendations, but it is a most important document which contains much valuable material and many positive suggestions which ought to be adopted. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends who, together with Conservative Members, worked so hard and expeditiously to complete that report.
The report deals with large matters and with matters which appear to be small but which, nevertheless, are important. For example, I draw attention to the recommendation in the report about the location of the British consulate general and the importance of it being prestigious. Those of us who were in Hong Kong not long ago and saw the huge demonstrations and signs outside the office of the New China news agency will know the symbolic importance that the people of Hong Kong will attach to the location of an office. I hope that, when the Government come to respond to the report, they will deal with that matter among a number of others.
The members of the Committee tried to come to terms with another problem to which the Foreign Secretary referred a moment ago—the apparently intractable problem of the boat people from Vietnam. No one who has seen the conditions in which the Vietnamese are held in Hong Kong—I in no way criticise the Hong Kong authorities who, in the circumstances, have done a miraculous job in providing conditions of cleanliness, good health and good food, but, nevertheless, the conditions are so awful that no one who has seen them can fail to be moved by the plight of the people in those centres and camps—
Mr. Chris Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one assurance that we can give the people of Hong Kong is that, however rough the going gets, we shall never hold refugees from Hong Kong in conditions quite as deplorable as those in which many Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong are held?
Mr. Kaufman: I very much hope that that would never occur. I am sure that it would not.
In its report, the Select Committee recommends mandatory repatriation of migrants from Hong Kong. I shrink from such a solution, but I can understand why the Committee arrived at that view. The flow has to stop, and it is arguable that the best way of stopping the flow is for potential migrants in Vietnam to witness the return of their compatriots and so realise that migration is fruitless.
I am more persuaded by the views put forward by the British Refugee Council which would entrench protections for human rights in any policy aimed at dealing with the problem. I value the council's recommendation that
"People who are not granted asylum should not be returned to Vietnam unless there is clear evidence that it would be safe for them to do so, firm assurances are given that they will not be penalised in any way, and their well-being and resettlement are thoroughly monitored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees."
1172
The key to solving the problem and obtaining such assurances is to accept the British Refugee Council's views about the relationships with Vietnam. The council says:
"The desperate poverty in Vietnam must be tackled as a matter of urgency and we urge Western governments to mount a major aid programme and improve relations with Vietnam.
We believe that economic aid and improved relations will make a major contribution to improving the human rights situation which will also help to stem the flow of refugees. Economic development will encourage others to stay and those who have left to return."
The British Refugee Council goes on to say:
"Normalisation of relations with Vietnam by the West and the lifting of trade and aid embargoes are essential, and should not be tied to negotiations about refugees. However, they will begin to address one of the root causes of migration. People will only stop leaving when they see hope for the future for them in Vietnam, and that depends on the resumption of international co-operation with the Government."
Those are sensible and important suggestions.
Meanwhile, I hope that when people in Hong Kong seek the right of abode in Britain and wonder why their demands are not immediately accepted, they will take into account the problems caused to them by the arrival in Hong Kong of migrants from Vietnam, who are only one eighth of the proportion of their population that British dependent territory passport holders in Hong Kong are of the population of the United Kingdom.
Much attention has understandably been focused on what the Select Committee's report says about demands for right of entry to Britain and right of abode here of Hong Kong British dependent territory passport holders, to which the Foreign Secretary referred this afternoon.
The Labour party agrees with the report's conclusion, which, as I understand it, is also the Government's view, that it would not be right to offer any commitment to those passport holders on the right of entry to the United Kingdom or the right of abode here.
I do not believe that it is possible to obtain or offer definite international guarantees of the kind proposed in the report to British dependent territory passport holders, but I agree with the spirit of the report that this is a matter on which international discussions should take place with a view to obtaining assurances about policy in the event of a crisis after the transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997. I trust that that matter will be a major item on the agenda for this weekend's Paris summit, and on the agendas of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur in the autumn and of the European Community summit at the end of the year. It should also be the subject of discussions between the Government and the United States Administration.
The Select Committee suggested that limited relaxations of our immigration laws should be implemented for specific groups in Hong Kong, and we can travel a certain distance with the Committee in that respect. We see no difficulty in offering right of abode to the very small number of war widows. In the Labour party's policy review report published two months ago, we made a clear commitment to non-Chinese minorities in Hong Kong, to whom right of entry is also recommended by the Select Committee. We accept the Committee's recommendations in respect of certain students having a clear and specific link with this country through their physical presence here. Those are all small and finite categories. As the Government are still considering them, I understand why the Foreign Secretary did not mention those categories this afternoon. However, I hope that the Government will find

1173
it possible to accept all those recommendations. They could so so without creating any controversy at all in this House.
We cannot agree with the Select Committee's recommendation for limited relaxation of our immigration laws in respect of two further categories, including people described as occupying key positions. Last week, when responding to the Foreign Secretary's statement on his return from Hong Kong, I told him that we recognise that certain Crown servants might feel or find themselves at risk as the transfer of Hong Kong to China approaches. We consider that it would be right for the Home Secretary to consider using his discretion under the Immigration Act 1971 in their favour, on an individual basis. The Committee's report also refers to the Home Secretary exercising his discretion under the British Nationality Act 1981. That option should also be considered positively. Such discretion should be used generously where appropriate, but it would not be right to create a special catch-all category of Crown servants, as the report recommends.
When I met Dame Lydia Dunn in Hong Kong and again in Britain, I was impressed by her argument—also made by those who argue for a blank right of abode, which we do not accept—that the creation of elite categories would be divisive and could not be defended in Hong Kong. Dame Lydia's view is that the creation of such categories would make it more difficult to govern Hong Kong. Still less do we accept the proposal to give assurances to people of affluence or influence in the private sector, which would be socially divisive. I see no reason why such people should be given preference over any other British dependent territory passport holders in Hong Kong. Morever, I cannot see how such a group can be defined, whether in an Act of Parliament or in an immigration rule, without introducing invidious distinctions. While we shall examine the scheme that the Foreign Secretary said the Government are considering, we have grave doubts about its implications.
While we go some but not all of the way with the Select Committee on the right of entry and abode, we accept almost completely its recommendations for progress with democracy in Hong Kong. I hope that, when the Government respond to the Select Committee, they will not go for the lowest common denominator—as they did when the Hong Kong Government issued a White Paper on representative government last year. That was a serious error, as is confirmed by the events that have taken place in China since then.
We concur with the Committee's view that 50 per cent. of the places in the Legislative Council should be directly elected in 1991 and that full direct elections should be introduced for 1995. We also agree with the Committee that the chief executive should be elected, but prefer election by direct adult suffrage rather than through an electoral college after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, as proposed by the Select Committee. We also agree with the suggestion made to me when I was in Hong Kong that the chief executive should be made accountable to the Legislative Council. It is most important that as much direct, representative, responsible and accountable democracy as possible should be available in Hong Kong before its transfer to China in 1997.
We see merit in the Committee's recommendations that assurances should be sought from the Chinese Government on the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration.
1174
It would be constructive to achieve continuity in the interpretation of laws existing before the creation of the Hong Kong special adminstrative region, so that there can be confidence in the judicial system. We support the Committee's recommendation for a Bill of Rights and are glad that the Government are already acting on it. It is important that the Basic Law accords in every particular with the Joint Declaration.
In debate on the Basic Law one year ago, I drew attention to certain apparent discrepancies between the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration and expressed the hope that they would be remedied. For that reason if for no other, it is important that the Hong Kong representatives should resume their work on drafting the Basic Law. I understand completely why they withdrew from that work, and in the circumstances they were right to do so. However, as the draftsmen's absence gives the representatives of the People's Republic of China a much freer hand and would provide them with excuses if the Basic Law is regarded as being unsatisfactory, when it is completed, it is proper that the Hong Kong representatives should return to the work of drafting it. Even so, I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the People's Republic should consider favourably extending the timetable for the Basic Law process. The British Government should strongly represent that view to the Chinese Government.
The Foreign Secretary spoke of making contacts with Chinese Ministers where appropriate, and mentioned the possibility of meeting his counterpart at the United Nations in the autumn. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should also consider an early formal and specific meeting with his counterpart, because it is important to put issues directly to the Government of the People's Republic. Above all, and in line with the view of the Select Committee, the Government should put it to the Government of the People's Republic that the People's Liberation Army should not be present in Hong Kong after the transfer in 1997. To the whole world, the current image of the People's Liberation Army is one of blood and barbarism. Even if the People's Republic expresses contrition—which so far it shows no sign of doing—it will take a long time for that image to fade.
I find particularly repulsive reports in today's newspaper of a trip around Tiananmen square yesterday for western tour operators. I find equally repulsive the mercenary and cold-blooded statements made by some of those tour operators when they visited the area where the massacre took place and saw physical signs of it. It is clear that the Chinese Government believe that the slaughter in Tiananmen square can be easily forgotten and that, after routine protests by western liberals, it can quickly be business as usual between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the democracies. It is essential that the Chinese Government are made to understand with crystal clarity that memories are not so short, and that horror cannot so speedily be erased.
That is why we on this side take exception to the attitude expressed yesterday by the Foreign Secretary towards the mission of the 48 Group which is due to visit China in October. We deplore any British business group visiting China so soon after the massacres. To exchange pleasantries in Peking so soon after a barbaric crime is insensitive enough. To drive past the site of that atrocity, as the mission is bound to do during the five days when the group is due to be in Peking, is even worse. Worse still is to tout as an attraction a meeting with Li Peng, the Prime

1175
Minister of the Government responsible for the massacres. Yet the Department of Trade and Industry is providing financial assistance to the mission. The brochure says:
"DTI support will be available to participants in the mission on the usual terms, as a contribution to travel cost. Official facilities will be drawn upon to the full."
Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is on record as welcoming and commending the mission.
In the full immediate flush of horror at the Peking massacre, the Foreign Secretary said:
"there can be no question of continuing normal business with the Chinese authorities."—[Official Report, 6 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 30.]
That firm and clear attitude has not lasted much longer than the time that it took to utter the words. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary took every opportunity to defend not only the trade mission but Government support for it.
I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would understand what use the Chinese authorities will make of the arrival of such a high-powered mission officially sponsored by the British Government. The propaganda value is incalculable. Does he not realise that to continue Government sponsorship of such a mission will encourage the Chinese Government to believe that, no matter what they do in the future or have done in the recent past, the British Government will accept it? The Government should cancel their sponsorship of the mission without delay. To continue sponsorship will send absolutely the wrong signal to Peking.
I do not say that there must never again be trade relations between Britain and China. Nor do I say that there must never again be cordial or even close relations. China will outlive this regression, just as it outlived the cultural revolution, to rejoin the wider world community in a more open and encouraging way than ever before. If China is to become a welcome member of the world community again, with all the wisdom and experience that that ancient nation can bring to civilised exchanges, she must first demonstrate that what happened in Peking last month was an aberration that will not be repeated. While the Chinese Government continue the present sickening series of executions, many of us will not be convinced.
Yet we want to be convinced. We want to believe that the enormous encouragement that we have drawn from the remarkable Chinese experiment in economic pluralism can be resumed. Our admiration for the Chinese people, their skill, industry, cheerfulness and bravery, continues unabated. Our admiration for those who stood up publicly for democratic values at their own peril is admiration for the real China, which many of us have visited and marvelled at.
We want to resume close friendship and personal relations with the Chinese Government. We ask them to make that possible. We say to them, end the executions, give clear and firm assurances to Hong Kong, and show by responding to what we ask for on the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration that, although we have been living through a nightmare, that nightmare will soon come to an end.
5.53 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: It is now some 20 years since I first went to Hong Kong, and in the intervening period I have returned there many times. I have developed an immense admiration for the people of Hong Kong and their achievements, which have grown progressively faster over those two decades.
When the Joint Declaration was signed it was natural that the people of Hong Kong were anxious about the future. But in the few years that have elapsed since then confidence in Hong Kong has grown, and economic activity and financial success have continued and even increased. Then came the tragic disaster of last month.
The Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to go to Hong Kong. He has been criticised in some quarters for it. He must have known the reception that he would receive, but his visit was invaluable not only for him to see at first hand the circumstances in Hong Kong and to inform his colleagues in the Government of them, but as a lightning conductor for the intense feeling on the island. For that he should be most strongly commended. His services to Hong Kong and to this country in so doing have been invaluable.
In the words of some friends of mine in Hong Kong, we are still stunned by the traumatic experience through which we have passed. Many of us here, too, are still stunned by the trauma in Peking and other big cities in the People's Republic of China. I acknowledge immediately that I am one of them. No one believed that it could possibly happen. How could it happen when the people at the top had themselves suffered during the cultural revolution? Deng Xiaoping said to me, "I am here only because Mao Tse-Tung said that not a hair on my head was to be damaged." His son was thrown out of his college window, his back was broken and he was denied treatment. How could those in authority in Peking have allowed the massacre to happen, or indeed authorised it? We still need to know the whole story. Perhaps we shall never know it, but the ghastly tragedy was there for us all to see.
The pernicious and dishonest journalist, Edward Pearce, has accused me of condoning the massacre. I have never condoned it for a moment. I am not ashamed that in 1972 as Prime Minister I brought about full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. It was in the interests of this country and Hong Kong that we should have friendly relations with China. In my first discussions with Mao Tse-Tung I obtained from him, in the presence of Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng, an undertaking that nothing serious would happen in Hong Kong and that the changeover in 1997 would be peaceful. That was a valuable undertaking from those in control then and who proved to retain control in the following years. I could not possibly condone for one moment the massacre in Peking and the executions and shootings in the other cities that followed.
I now come to the position in Hong Kong today. The Foreign Secretary is right to emphasise that an increase in confidence is required above all. He would be the first to add that that is the most difficult thing in the world to bring about. It is difficult to achieve that in any circumstances, let alone in circumstances as bad as these.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that perhaps Peking will now realise that it has shocked not only Hong Kong and Britain but the rest of the world, and that it will take a

1177
considerable time to restore confidence. It remains to be seen whether, as happened after the cultural revolution, there emerge people who want to promote peaceable development in that enormous country, not only economically but politically. I do not underestimate the political difficulties of changing organisations and institutions in a country of 1,050,000,000 people. I have never been able to work out what the most admirable constitutional arrangement would be and I have never met anybody who could. That must be acknowledged. But until we see proof that the movement is political as well as economic, we shall find it very difficult to regain our confidence in Peking.
I have differed in the past with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the question of the speed and the form of democratisation in Hong Kong. He mentioned it again today, saying that it was receiving consideration. My view is that the only action that we can take in the near future that would do something to restore confidence in Hong Kong is to speed up both the timing and the method of democratisation. I am afraid that I have always believed that the advice that my right hon. and learned Friend received was wrong. It came from the wrong people, who had an interest in maintaining the present circumstances, first, because they could not trust democracy in Hong Kong and, secondly, because they wanted to be in a position to hand over Hong Kong in 1997.
Let me repeat my request, which I have made in two earlier debates: that my right hon. and learned Friend—who is backed by the organisations in Hong Kong—should speed up the process and the method of democratisation.
Mr. Robert Adley: I do not think that anyone in the House dissents from my right hon. Friend's sentiments about democracy in Hong Kong. Does he recall that fears used to be expressed that the two most widely organised political bodies there would turn out to be the Communist party and the Guomindang? Does that still obtain, and is it a danger that we need to consider?
Mr. Heath: I agree that that was said. The answer is to get the other organisations in Hong Kong going, which would maintain the democratic basis. Surely we as a country have enough experience to help Hong Kong to organise its parties in that way.
I know that others have taken the view that Hong Kong will never have a party organisation. I do not accept that, and what my hon. Friend has said denies it. The existing groups—even if they are not categorised as political parties —are there and will act. I hope that any status that the Communist party in Hong Kong may have had has now been demolished by events in Peking, but that does not alter the fact that we must play our part—or, at least, the governor and his council must play their part—in the organisation of a great democratic system in Hong Kong.
I do not agree that those in Hong Kong have a right of abode, or that we are under an obligation to create such a right. I think that it is our responsibility to consider the practical side of the question as well as any moral or traditional, historic, national or legal obligations. The practical problems are on our doorstep: there are between 40,000 and 50,000 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. Have we been able to persuade the world to accept them? Not at all. A mere trickle is returning to Vietnam. Of the
1178
29,000 Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin, we took 25,000; the Americans took 1,000, the Canadians 1,000 and the Swedes 2,000. That was a big enough problem, and some of us have been damned for it ever since. With Hong Kong, we face a major practical difficulty.
What worries me particularly is the fact that, if we accept an obligation in 1997 because of circumstances that may exist then, we shall place on our successors a burden that we ourselves need not shoulder. There will be a different Government—perhaps of the same party, but with different people in it—[Laughter.] Naturally, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will still be here.
A different Parliament—perhaps two Parliaments hence—will have to carry out the obligation that we have accepted and that we shall have placed upon it. I do not consider that a proper responsibility for us to accept for the future.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the worst betrayals that this country has ever perpetrated have been when we have made promises to, for instance, countries in central Europe without being aware of the circumstances in which we might have to honour those promises? That entirely supports his view that, if we made a promise now that would have to be implemented by others in the future, we might find that they—for good reasons—had to go back on it.
Mr. Heath: It will be a wonderful day when I make a speech, on whatever subject, into which my hon. Friend does not introduce the European Community and its treaty.
Mr. Budgen: That is not the point.
Mr. Heath: Of course, a nation is responsible for any treaty into which it enters, but those treaties could have been changed at some future date under the terms of a later treaty. I do not wish to become involved in an argument about whether they should ever have been established; that is part of history, and will be in the memoirs.
Then we come to the worrying question of people leaving Hong Kong in the intervening period. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that he has an obligation where officials are concerned, but I should have thought that it would be possible to deal with that on a financial basis with sufficient inducements for people to stay until 1997, with an undertaking that they were prepared to do so. I do not believe, however, that the Government are obliged to make an arrangement involving the managers of private enterprises. That must depend on the enterprises themselves, and they have an interest, in exactly the same way as Peking has an interest, in maintaining the position of Hong Kong for its financial and industrial and trading future.
Once we get past that, the risk of accusations of discrimination is immense. The argument will go as follows: "You can say that so-and-so is more valuable to Hong Kong than the man in the street, but if people are to suffer, why is he to be let off while the man in the street suffers?" It is as simple as that. I cannot see a means of implementing a layer of special arrangements without Parliament and the Government being accused of unjustifiable discrimination. That is the immediate problem that awaits us.

1179
Let us try to look to the future. We hope that Peking will now have recognised the disastrous impact on the world of what has happened. Did it realise at the time? If so, why did it allow the world to see it on television? Why should all the telephone lines have been open throughout the episode? Let us hope that it now realises and will change; and let us see a change similar to that which followed the cultural revolution and to what—as far as we know—is happening in the Soviet Union today.
We can say this about Peking: when it gives international undertakings—this is an international undertaking, registered with the United Nations—it adheres to them. When it gives financial undertakings to, for instance, investment banks, in my experience, it adheres to those. That may be one hope for the future —that, having given an undertaking registered with the United Nations, Peking will adhere to it.
Let us be open and frank. We now face the most difficult task in politics: to remain patient in unknown circumstances that we cannot control and to which we can see no immediate answer. I hope that, both here and in Hong Kong, we can prove that we are able to master it.
6.9 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is always difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) because his speeches are very carefully listened to and well worth listening to. I agree with almost all that he said, except for the curious assertion that we cannot take a decision or make a commitment today because it would lay a burden on future Governments and future generations. I should have thought that that was the basis on which we always go ahead. It is not an unreasonable basis in this area, too.
Five years ago, in 1984, I first spoke in the House on the subject of the Joint Declaration and Hong Kong. On that occasion I remember congratulating—I do so now—the Government on having put together the Joint Declaration. I believed then, and I believe now, that it is the foundation on which we must go forward. It was a not inconsiderable diplomatic achievement. However, I recall saying at the time that that good foundation would be significantly undermined if Britain failed to honour its moral obligations. I also recall saying that I was depressed because I did not hear the genuine fears, anger and sense of betrayal which were felt at that time in Hong Kong being echoed in this House. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to note that, following the appalling and tragic events in Tiananmen square, the predictions and comments that I made then have come all too tragically true.
In a sense, it does not matter how much faith Britain puts in the Joint Declaration, or how much faith China puts in it. To be able to make it work, we have to ensure that there is faith in Hong Kong that it will work. If there is no faith, the basis upon which it was drawn up—one of the articles to which we committed ourselves being to hand over Hong Kong with a prosperous economy and a stable society—will be undermined. The people of Hong Kong will believe that the agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written and that it cannot be delivered. In a real sense, Hong Kong is the silent partner in this bilateral agreement between Britain and China. The survival and
1180
success of the Joint Declaration requires the people of Hong Kong to believe that it can work and that it will be observed.
The Foreign Secretary was absolutely right when he identified the purpose of the Government's actions and those of the House as being to recreate a sense of trust and belief in the Joint Declaration so that Hong Kong can remain economically prosperous and socially stable.
It is my case—I argued it five years ago, I have argued it in the lead-up to this debate and I argue it now—that at the heart of the re-establishment of that trust is the need to provide the people of Hong Kong with the capacity, as free citizens, to leave Hong Kong. Part of the Joint Declaration and of the agreement that the Government rightly reached with the Chinese was that the Chinese would follow what they referred to as an open door policy. People would be free to leave Hong Kong. However, an open door is useless unless, when one walks through it, there is somewhere to go. It may be that the Government of the People's Republic of China will honour their side of the open door agreement, but that agreement is meaningless unless we are prepared to underpin it, too. The freedom to have somewhere to go to is the bottom line in any action that is taken to ensure that the people of Hong Kong feel confident about the future.
We can have as much democracy as we wish, but it will not work if people are always looking over their shoulder at a tyrant who is just round the corner and who is prepared to lock them up for their views—if not today, tomorrow. It would be wrong of us to believe that democracy is like some magic charm that we can wave in the face of People's Liberation Army tanks and they will go away. If that was our belief, God knows, it must have been snuffed out after the terrible events in Tiananmen square. What will happen if those events are, despite our best efforts, recreated in Nathan road, Kowloon after 1997?
There is no earthly reason why those who are rich enough, clever enough or skilled enough will want to stay to make Hong Kong work and keep it prosperous and socially stable if, at the end of the day, the status that they are generously granted is not that of a free citizen but that of a refugee. If people do not stay now, the capital which underpins the financial stability of Hong Kong will leave, too. The question whether we honour that right of abode is not one that can be traded off against greater democracy. It lies at the heart of and underpins everything else that we do to establish and preserve stability in Hong Kong.
Before I come to that matter, let me deal with a few of the comments that are germane to the debate and that were referred to by the Foreign Secretary and others. I join the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in congratulating the Government on having shifted their position. For the past five years all of us have argued that the issue of democracy is very important—that the arrival and takeover by the People's Republic of China of the special administrative region of Hong Kong should be more than simply a question of sending in a man with a screwdriver to change the nameplates on the door of Government house. An established democratic process in Hong Kong would ensure that that would happen.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report was correct and wise in saying that the time has come to increase the pace of democracy in Hong Kong. It said something else which

1181
is also important. The decisions that must be taken about the pace of the adoption of democracy in Hong Kong are delicate and careful ones. They could unbalance political and economic stability in Hong Kong. In that sense, the Foreign Affairs Committee report was correct. What must guide us in the decisions that are taken about the pace of democracy are the views of the people of Hong Kong. It is far better that they should take their own decisions, in so far as that is possible, about the pace of democratisation than that we should draw up blueprints in Westminster or Whitehall.
Some of the ingredients of the democratisation process include a chief executive in Hong Kong. I share the view that it would be better if the chief executive were elected on a free franchise of all voters in Hong Kong than in an electoral college. The time of the excellent governor, Sir David Wilson, will run out naturally before 1997. I take the view that it would be extremely helpful to Hong Kong if his replacement were to be not a Foreign Office official but a politician, or some other person of independent standing in the United Kingdom.
It is correct to say that the Joint Declaration is the basis for going forward. There are voices—
Mr. George Foulkes: I am astonished by what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Does he not think that at some point before 1997 it would be better for a Hong Kong Chinese national to take over that role to prepare for the role as chief executive instead of importing someone from the United Kingdom? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is offering his own services. However, it is a strange suggestion.
Mr. Ashdown: I hear the hon. Gentleman's words, but there are two arguments. I do not intend to tell him now which I think is the better argument. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that the views of the people of Hong Kong are important. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is laughing. I wonder what the Government's stated view on this is now? There is a balanced argument, which I shall put to the hon. Gentleman in the terms in which it was put to me by very senior people in Hong Kong. The prevailing view among the Chinese on OMELCO and UMELCO is that it may be better not to have a Hong Kong national in those circumstances precisely because of the divisions that it might cause. The view in Hong Kong, and it is one to which the House must pay attention, is that it would be better to have an independent and objective person from the United Kingdom. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think a little more carefully about that.
The Joint Declaration is the right basis for going forward. There are those in Hong Kong, including Martin Lee, who believe that it should be scrapped. That would be wrong, dangerous and destabilising. We should strengthen the Joint Declaration by any means that we can. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that the Chinese are good at honouring agreements. He is correct, but there is one exception—the Sino-Tibetan agreement of 1951, which, rather chillingly, used the phrase, "One party two systems". That agreement has been repudiated and ignored, leading to the destruction of religious, cultural and political systems, the flight of 100,000 people from Tibet and the death by starvation and execution of 100,000 more. Almost as a dress rehearsal for the events in
1182
Tiananmen square, two months earlier there was a major descent on dissident elements in Tibet and hundreds, if not thousands, of people were summarily arrested at midnight on March 7.
I am not sure that I can take the same comfort in the Chinese honouring agreements as did the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. The Government should consider reinforcing the Joint Declaration, or perhaps the Basic Law internationally in the United Nations, not just by its registration as a treaty, but by passing a resolution before the Security Council. As China has a veto, it would be interesting to see how it would react. The Government should consider reinforcing the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law by guaranteeing powers or appointing people to scrutinise and investigate its operation.
I now come to the Basic Law and the legal system. I welcome the Government's agreement that we should have a Bill of Rights, but I ask them to look carefully at the June 1989 Amnesty report which points out some worrying factors about the use of the death penalty in Hong Kong and safeguards against torture and arbitrary detention.
I share the Foreign Secretary's view on sanctions. I do not believe that sanctions would be appropriate at present, but the Government should recognise that China may be considered for chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights later this year. I hope that the Government will make it clear that any such decision would be extremely unwelcome and that they will oppose it.
On nationality, I believe that there is a moral obligation. Britain has handed over people to their own Governments many times before, rightly and properly, in the dismantlement of our empire. But we have never handed over an entire people to another Government, let alone to a Communist tyranny. We cannot remove the special responsibility for that special act by irresponsible scaremongering with figures such as 3·25 million. Everyone who has studied this matter knows that there is no possibility of 3·25 million people coming to Britain before 1997. A poll carried out by the South China Morning Post shows that 6 per cent. might come here before 1997. However, it is possible that they will come here if, to use the governor's expression, Armageddon should strike after 1997. The Government have already accepted responsibility for providing homes for the people of Hong Kong should Armageddon strike. The difference between the Government's proposals and mine is that their proposals would not allow an orderly transferral of citizens, but instead would require a panic plan to house penniless refugees.
What would happen if we gave right of abode now? Perhaps 6 per cent. would come here. However, as 1997 approached, many others would make preparations to take out an insurance policy in Britain in case the worst should happen. Hong Kong Chinese tell me that they would begin investing in Britain and establishing subsidiaries of Hong Kong firms here. They would prepare for that eventuality by diversifying their businesses.
Instead of orderly preparation, as was considered in the Corry report which suggested that under those circumstances there was a real possibility of economic benefit to Britain, and instead of an orderly approach to a desperate human problem, the Government are producing policies that rely on a mass influx of penniless, destitute refugees. Their policy is designed to bring about the very scenario that they say that they are trying to avoid.

1183
Peter Kellner was right when he wrote in The Independent:
"What would really mess things up would be for Hong Kong's business people, teachers, doctors and engineers to settle in the United States, Australia and West Germany and for its pensioners, unmarried mothers, waiters and street-cleaners to come to Britain."
Mr. Adley: Everyone seems to consider the problem in terms of United Kingdom immigration policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the following scenario for Hong Kong, which is more likely and would be more damaging? Hong Kong has the Joint Declaration because of its usefulness to China. If we were to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests and gave people in Hong Kong the right of abode now, and anything should happen in the next eight years to create a blip in confidence and people started to leave Hong Kong in numbers, a slow departure could become a flood and Hong Kong could lose some of its best people. It would then lose its attraction to China. Where would Hong Kong be without its attraction to China?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman's useful interruption takes me to my next point. The Government's argument is that that would encourage just such an exodus. At present there is no evidence for that. Why should people leave Hong Kong at present? It has a growth rate of 8 per cent. a year, it has a much more pleasant climate than ours and it is a well-ordered and beautiful city. The Government have provided their own answer by saying that they will give a right of abode in Britain to make sure that the skilled people and the administrators will stay in Hong Kong. They argue that the way to make sure that the skilled remain in Hong Kong is to give them the right of abode in Britain. If that applies to those people, why does it not apply to the rest?
Unless the assurance of the ability to leave is given, the people of Hong Kong will begin to leave. That is exactly what is happening. The Canadians are setting up seminars in hotels in Hong Kong to attract the best people to Canada because they do not have the confidence to stay in Hong Kong. The French are issuing passports to those working in French banks. When Singapore offered the opportunity of relaxation, there were 25,000 people outside the Singapore offices. Just down the coast, there is a large population of Chinese with Portuguese passports and the Portuguese have given them the right of abode.
As a result, families are being split and the best and the brightest are leaving Hong Kong. There are the beginnings of a flight of capital. Once again Government policy seems absolutely dedicated to undermining the financial and social stability that they wish to preserve, weakening the credibility of the Hong Kong administration and increasing instability. That policy is mad and nonsensical. The Government's selective approach is divisive and against the recommendation of the Hong Kong administration and adds to the worry about that general policy.
There is another broader consequence. The sense of betrayal and anger and the concern about Britain not living up to her responsibilities are not confined to Hong Kong but are spreading to other nations round the Pacific rim. A senior British business man who runs one of the most established firms in the colony said to me that the
1184
Government's actions had the potential of doing as much damage to Britain's interests in the far east and the Pacific basin as Britain's actions in Suez did to our interests in the middle east.
We should offer right of abode. That is not too much. If people think that it is too much, perhaps we should try to reinsure that risk internationally. I was interested in the amended plan, published in a newspaper article the other day, put forward by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), and I hope that we will hear more details. It may offer a way forward. In that article, he said that there must be a way round this difficult matter, if sensible brains can address it properly.
This is not just a moral issue. It is a practical way of underpinning democracy in Hong Kong. The only power that the people of Hong Kong will have to pit against the might of the Chinese Government after 1997 will be the power to withdraw the one thing that China needs so badly —a prosperous Hong Kong. If we make that power a reality, the power to limit the PRC's actions will be stronger. That is why I believe that our commitment to the establishment and preservation of democracy after 1997 depends on ensuring that we make a commitment before 1997 that the Chinese can leave Hong Kong if they wish.
This is not the first time that we on the Liberal and Social Democrat Benches have stood alone making these arguments. I did this five years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) did it about a year ago and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has done it several times. I am proud to say that our party believes that we have a moral and practical duty to honour the right of abode that underpins democracy in Hong Kong.
I am depressed by two factors. First, I am depressed by the attitude of the official spokesman for the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Gorton. It is incomprehensible that the Labour party voted against the 1981 regulations the consequences of which it is prepared to accept. I contrast the Labour party's words in that debate, when it declared its opposition to that legislation, with the attitude that it is taking today in support of the Government. I especially remember the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who is now deputy leader of the Labour party. On 4 June 1981, in committing the Labour party to repeal the legislation, he said:
"The necessity for repeal and replacement is all the greater, not least because the Bill is largely based not on Government theories about nationality, but on Government fears about immigration."—[Official Report, 4 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 1159.]
Now we note that the Labour party is joining in fanning those fears about immigration.
I remember the words of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when he summed up that debate:
"Nationality is a fundamental concept which ought to be decided on principle and not on expediency. The Bill is shot through with expediency from start to finish, which springs from the artificial fears which the Conservative Party and others have attempted to create among the British people about the prospect of others immigrating to this country." —[Official Report, 4 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 1178.]
Brave words, but abandoned words. I think of the Labour party in its great period, when it helped with the dismantlement of empire. I think of the Labour party as a great defender of civil liberties, the rights of ethnic minorities and international justice. I compare that with

1185
what I see now—a sham, hollow replica of that Labour party. We now see the new model Labour party facing its first moral challenge—and it has failed.
I am depressed at the attitude that the House takes to these matters. We have never in our history taken a decision like this. Of course, we must hand back Hong Kong in 1997—we have no other option—but that means the territory, not necessarily the people. I ask the House to pause and think of the enormity of the act that we are contemplating. We hand over 6 million people to a Communist tyranny, all of whom are our responsibility, half of whom are our passport holders and the majority of whom fled from that tyranny in fear of their lives. We hand them over to a tyranny of old men who have only recently slaughtered their young citizens on the streets of the main square of their capital city for daring to believe in democracy.
The House shrugs its shoulders. It says, "We can do nothing about this. There is no way that we can help in that circumstance." My party does not believe that, and we shall divide the House. Britain is now writing the last pages in the history of its empire. If the House allows the Government to get their way in this matter, there will have been complicity in ensuring that those last pages are grubby, shameful and discreditable pages in what should be an important and glorious history.
6.35 pm
Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be grateful, I know, to nearly all right hon. and hon. Members for the way in which they have received its report after its inquiry into the position in Hong Kong. It is always nice for members and the hard-working staff of Select Committees to have their work appreciated. In fact, it is nice to get their reports debated at all. We certainly appreciate the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others have made about this study.
It was obvious that in the first place the reception given to the Select Committee's report in Hong Kong was very different. There were cries of "Shame" and "Dishonourable", and many other rough words were used. I, for one—I suspect that I speak for all other members of the Select Committee—see nothing dishonourable in stating firmly and clearly at the outset what we are capable of doing and what we think should be done. Nothing could be worse—as others have said more eloquently than I— than making commitments now that later, disastrously, we cannot keep.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most telling paragraphs in the Select Committee's report is paragraph 4·10, which discusses the scale of the problem? The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) glossed over what could be a major problem. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a genuine problem in terms of refugees seeking to qualify as British dependent territory citizens and adding to the numbers?
Mr. Howell: If I have time, I shall consider those matters in more detail.
Having had the opportunity to talk to a number of visitors from Hong Kong since the visit by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I do not think
1186
that it is too optimistic to say that, on further study of what my right hon. and learned Friend, the Select Committee report and many people who are interested in Hong Kong's future are trying to say, there has been a slightly better and less hostile reception.
I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has shown courage—the courage to say no. That is a difficult act of statesmanship. He has been accused, as we have, of not fulfilling obligations. We have unique obligations to the people of Hong Kong. In a sense, my right hon. and learned Friend is the embodiment of the fulfilment of those obligations, with his ceaseless visits to the territory and, above all, his achievement of an agreement that is unique in history. I remind hon. Members that one of the treaty partners—the People's Republic of China—agrees to forswear the right for its political system to be operated in a piece of territory that will be within its sovereign control. It is extraordinary that there will be capitalism and no Socialism will be allowed. It would be unconstitutional for Socialism—I apologise to Opposition Members—to operate in the special administrative region of Hong Kong. My right hon. and learned Friend has gone almost as far as possible in statecraft and politics in dealing and grappling with this appallingly difficult issue.
We are now moving into the realms of psychology and psychological reassurances, and some of the most complex and difficult issues that the House has ever been asked to face, particularly the unique issue of how we devise reassurances. It is not a matter of keeping people here, letting them go or allowing them in, but how to devise reassurances to keep people in another place—in Hong Kong. That is a difficult, complex issue.
There are three matters raised in the report with which I wish to deal, and the first is relations with China. The report carefully examined the relationship between the two treaty partners, ourselves and the People's Republic of China. We had some fairly firm words to say in paragraph 3·5 about the importance of further discussions and advice on the Basic Law, discussions in the joint liaison group, and any administrative changes in Hong Kong itself being built on the principle of recognising the needs of Hong Kong. During our visit to the territories, we heard and examined suggestions—we found no hard evidence or validity for them—from many leading opinion-makers in Hong Kong that not enough account had been taken of the needs of Hong Kong and that too much attention had been paid to second-guessing and apprehensions about what the Government in Peking really want for Hong Kong.
That period has passed. I do not think that there was validity for such fears, but they existed, and it is important for the Government to ensure that, from now on, not a scintilla of doubt is left in people's minds that the British and the Hong Kong Administration are pursuing the interests of Hong Kong. We must ensure that the Basic Law—which the Chinese are drafting and have reasserted is to be promulgated on the original schedule, although the length of the consultation period has been extended—at least conforms with the Joint Declaration, the remarkable document that was secured by my right hon. and learned Friend five years ago.
The situation is reinforced by the simple fact that the PRC now has a vastly greater interest in moving in a way that will maintain the stability of Hong Kong. In a sense, the dangerous and unpredictable giant has weakened itself

1187
by the horrors of the night of 3 and 4 June in Tiananmen square. It is now as much in China's deep interests as it is in our interests to see that everything necessary is done to maintain stability in the territory. That is what the Select Committee has to say about that matter. Perhaps hon. Members will elaborate on it.
The second matter is democracy. It is quite right that Hong Kong must decide. That must be the governing principle. The Select Committee took the liberty of offering its view. In discussions, the Select Committee did not see why it should not offer its own views, given the way in which the democracy issue is handled and is germane to maintaining stability in the territory. Our strong recommendation is that democracy should be entrenched before 1997. The recommendation is ahead of the decision that was taken by the Hong Kong Administration and the British Government before the massacres, and ahead of the view that was taken at that time by the Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, on 24 May. Since then, I have heard that OMELCO is again examining the matter and is moving to support for an even more rapid timetable. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will keep in close touch with that matter, the development of ideas within the territory, and the move towards entrenching democracy.
There has been a turnaround. There were people who used to say, "We have done very well without democracy in Hong Kong; why do we need it? It is destabilising and will bring out the Kuomintang and other things." Quite often, the same people are now saying the opposite—that the dangers of introducing democracy and stability too quickly are more than outweighed by the imperative need to ensure that Hong Kong is a strongly entrenched democratic institution and society by 1997 and that that will give it a strong and vibrant place under the sovereignty of the PRC, but as a democratic unit, the voice of which the world and, of course, Peking, its sovereign power, will recognise.
The third point is nationality. The Committee expressed the view that others have expressed, that the idea of granting right of abode to the existing 3·28 million people in Hong Kong who are eligible for British dependent territory passports, let alone the other 2 million or so who will be eligible in coming years, is an impossibility. I paraphrase the Select Committee's words, but the conclusion is obvious. It is an impractical, implausible and therefore worthless undertaking.
No country can put its immigration policy into commission. That is what it would be. We can talk about it being an insurance policy, but with an insurance policy the person providing the cover has certain criteria upon which a claim is honoured. In this case, the right to make a claim would be delegated and put in commission. In effect, it would put not merely our policy of 27 years standing but our entire policy in these matters into commission.
It is a great pity that able minds and much money in Hong Kong have been mobilised behind an advertising and public relations campaign to go on hitting against the single narrow target of right of abode for all those passport holders in the United Kingdom. It will cause grief, be a misdirection of energy, and keep alive unfounded
1188
expectations and divert the vast abilities of the Hong Kong people from thinking about their own situation in a more realistic, international way.
As for categories, the Select Committee's report endorses the view, which is now the view of my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government, that there should be eligible categories for passports. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that a package of proposals will come forward. That will be difficult, just as everything is difficult in this matter. Of course, expectations in Hong Kong, even on that narrow point, are growing. There are two views in Hong Kong. One is that the numbers must be very large. I have heard quite responsible people suggest that anything less than 100,000 will be worse than nothing. Others have said that everything would be worse than nothing and that it is such a divisive concept that it would be wrong for any categorisation at all to take place, particularly those who say that it is an all-or-nothing argument—either a right of abode for everybody or nothing.
Perhaps I am too frank, but the divisions are there already. Perhaps between 500,000 and 1 million people in Hong Kong already have passports. They can go anywhere they like. Many of them can already come here. To talk about it being divisive, to deny that perhaps not very highly salaried people doing absolutely vital work in law and order and administration should also have the reassurance of that passport—I accept the reassurance argument in this context—is a little unfair and crude, and does not recognise the importance of these matters.
Therefore, there are two voices in this. I believe that it is right to opt for categories, although there has been strong advice from some quarters that the whole thing should be dropped. This will be a difficult issue to bring forward, but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has approached it with his usual extreme care and subtlety.
At the end of paragraph 4·15, the Committee referred to longer-term assurances and said—I paraphrase—that the British Government should take a lead with our EEC partners and with other immigrant-receiving countries, such as Australia, Canada and the United States, in putting in place and seeking to establish the definite assurances that are needed in the years ahead. I believe that that is the right direction for the Government to take. As I said earlier, that is a very much better direction into which the energies of the people of Hong Kong can be diverted than is knocking their heads against the unavoidable and pointless objective of passports for everyone.
It has already been said by our EEC partners that they do not want to know about these things. As we look at this issue it is worth bearing in mind the Portuguese question. Of course, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, the numbers are quite different. I understand that the Portuguese are to give 100,000 full citizenships—not just passports—to the Chinese people in Macao, and that there has been talk of almost double that number.
The Portuguese example follows a different policy line from the one that we have adopted. Let us think for a moment about what it implies in Europe. Those people will become citizens of Portugal but in due course, when Portugal has fulfilled all its obligations and has become a full member of the European Community, those people will become citizens of the EEC. That will not happen

1189
immediately elsewhere because there are questions about right of settlement and right of abode for people coming to this country. However, I imagine that it will apply immediately in the case of Portugal and that the people who take up that right will be free to go anywhere in Europe—and that they may well do so.
If we are honest with ourselves, we know—I expect that my right hon. and learned Friend knows this full well—that at the moment every EEC country is facing the most severe and frightening prospect of mass immigration of one sort or another—whether from the Maghreb or anywhere else. Anyone who thinks that the problems of other EEC countries are not ours in relation to these pressures from outside and to the enormous volume movements of world immigration and emigration—and vice versa, that our problems are not theirs—is living in another world.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to have discussions on this with the rest of the European Community—I shall come to the wider world in a moment —so that future pressures can be met in an orderly way. Those pressures are coming—only an ostrich with its head underground could deny that fact—and we shall not be able to deal with them alone, any more than we can contemplate the ideas about passports alone.
Mr. James Couchman: Is it not a fact that the Portuguese have always granted rights of citizenship to those born in their colonies of Portuguese parents and that the British Nationality Act 1981 confirmed that that would continue to apply in Macao?
Mr. Howell: Yes, I believe that it is. That point simply emphasises the problem.
The Committee urged my right hon. and learned Friend to take the lead in this matter. I hope that he will consider what we said. Indeed, he has already given a response that sounded extremely positive on that.
My own view—this is not the view of the Committee which has stated its views in the report—is that other countries such as the United States, Australia and Canada and, as we have recently read, Singapore, which has announced a figure of 25,000, although I gather that larger numbers are now contemplated, should become involved in what is, in effect, an underwriting scheme. It is a scheme for keeping those people in Hong Kong, which is what we are concerned to do.
I hope that the offers and assurances can be taken up, and not only if catastrophic events overwhelm the territory. Although my right hon. and learned Friend referred to such circumstances when he spoke to the Committee, that is a fuzzy concept. In reality, there would not be one single morning on which there was an overwhelming catastrophe. There would be ugly and rising tensions and dangers with sudden large groups of people seeking to leave the colony. Of course, one does not want any of that to happen—it is unpleasant even to have to talk about it—but we must realise that there will be circumstances well short of a neatly defined "catastrophe" —whatever that means—in which enormous pressures will come upon us and for which some provision and pre-vision would be desirable.
On a narrower scale, the flexible package that my right hon. and learned Friend will use on behalf of the
1190
Government is a first pebble in that pool, as are the ideas of the Singapore Government and the proposals that we are now hearing from the United States Congress.
Mr. Ashdown: I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. We are all listening with great care to the right hon. Gentleman's personal views on this issue, which I find encouraging. Those views are obviously what he referred to in the Asian Wall Street Journal. However, I hope that he will not be guilty of raising the hopes that he has accused others of raising in Hong Kong. To be more specific, is he referring to an international agreement giving a promissory note in the event of catastrophe? Is he referring to something which would generously allow the people of Hong Kong to be considered as refugees in the event of terrible occurrences in the future, in which case such a provision would do nothing to keep people in Hong Kong—or is he referring to a commitment to citizenship? If he is not to raise people's hopes falsely, I hope that he will be a little more specific.
Mr. Howell: There are real difficulties in setting out what one suggests other countries should come together on and examine and the things in which my right hon. and learned Friend should take the lead. I am seeking to address perhaps unsolicited advice to the people of Hong Kong and am saying, "Please cease aiming all your huge energies at the right of abode for everybody"—which, if I understand his intervention, the right hon. Gentleman seems to think they should still work for—"and divert it into examining ways of seeking international assurances." I have used my words very carefully—I shall not repeat them because they are on the record—about in what circumstances those assurances should be given.
There is interest in this problem all around the world. It is not confined to just this country, as my right hon. and learned Friend recognised in his earlier remarks. Whether we "take a lead" as the Select Committee suggested or not —and, in my view, we have in a sense taken a lead—there are many other things to be done. The Bill of Rights is to be put in place. My right hon. and learned Friend is moving vigorously on that. There is also the question—
Dr. Jeremy Bray rose—
Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but I think that I must rush on because I have taken too much time already.
There is also the question of keeping the People's Liberation Army out of Hong Kong. The Select Committee warned about that, and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has noted our words. There is also the question of the physical, long-standing, long-enduring construction of a mighty building which would be the Great British consulate-general, showing that Britain will remain interested in the territory for years and years ahead. It would be a physical manifestation of our interest. There is also the recommendation in our report that the issue of the boat people should be dealt with. I shall not elaborate on that difficult issue now. There is also the final interpretation of the law, which we suggest should be clarified, and there are proposals for the development of democracy.
Most of those aspects of our report were denounced in Hong Kong in the heat of the moment. Now is the time for cooler consideration. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has

1191
said, ultimately the interests and the future of Hong Kong depend on China. For all its unpredictability and for all the hideous upheavals of recent days and the past, China has stayed predictable throughout about Hong Kong. Even in the moments of blood, smoke and horror, we must remember that basic fact.
In eight years' time Hong Kong becomes a ward of China. We must make sure that it remains also a precious godchild of Britain, Europe and the whole free world. A secure future can surely be built on that basis.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches operates from 7 o'clock, and I appeal for the co-operation of hon. Members.
6.59 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: The current situation in Hong Kong has been described as a crisis of confidence. We can certainly understand why the people of Hong Kong have no confidence in the Government of the People's Republic of China after the recent atrocities in Peking and elsewhere, but they also have decreasing confidence in the British Government. Indeed, the feeling among many of them is that they are being betrayed. The first duty of the House, therefore, is to restore their confidence—especially when we consider their valuable contribution to the wellbeing of the people of Britain over many years.
We must consider the best way to restore that confidence. There have been suggestions from some quarters that the Joint Declaration should be torn up, but I believe that that would be unrealistic and undesirable. The track record of the Government of the People's Republic of China—despite what has been said about Tibet by the leader of the Democrats—has been generally a good one in terms of keeping to international agreements and treaties. The recent events in the People's Republic of China, horrific and deplorable though they have been, have not invalidated the Joint Declaration.
What can we do to ensure that the Joint Declaration is implemented, to achieve security for the people of Hong Kong and political, social and economic stability in Hong Kong? First, we can try to encourage the emergence of strong and democratic institutions, which I have advocated during visits to Hong Kong and in this House for many years—even before the signing of the Sino-British agreement. Unfortunately, successive British Governments have been guilty of dragging their feet on that issue and have been content to continue governing Hong Kong in the style of a colonial dictatorship.
I hope that the House will welcome the Select Committee's proposals for the Legislative Council—that 50 per cent. of the council should be directly elected by 1991 and 100 per cent. by 1995, and that the chief executive should be elected by universal suffrage as soon as possible. In the Select Committee I said that I should have preferred the latter election to take place at least six months before 1997. At least the Committee has gone some way towards meeting that point, although I accept the doubts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about whether an electoral college would be the best way to proceed.
1192
At this point I part company with most other members of the Select Committee, because I believe that the second way to help to restore confidence and allay the fears of the Hong Kong people is to give the right of abode in this country to all British dependent territory citizens. I argued that point, too, in Committee, and I tabled an amendment which unfortunately was supported by only one other Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh).
Bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman who chairs the Select Committee has said, is it not ironic that the Portuguese Government have granted the people of Macao a right of abode which in effect will give them the right not just to enter Portugal but to enter other European Community countries and to seek work in those countries, including the United Kingdom, yet the United Kingdom will exclude British passport holders in Hong Kong from that same and equal right?
It is also less than even handed on the part of the Government to have given special priority treatment to the Falkland Islanders, but to deny similar treatment to the people of Hong Kong. It is also worth bearing in mind that there are literally millions of people scattered throughout the globe who have the right of abode in this country, but who do not wish to exercise that right at present or in the immediate future. I can imagine, for example, the possible scenario in the event of a crisis in South Africa. It is estimated that 1 million white South Africans have the right of abode in this country. If a revolutionary situation emerged in South Africa, I am sure that the Government and Conservative Members would be bending over backwards to bring those people into this country. There would, probably, not be a whimper of protest from them and their supporters.
It is also indulging in scaremongering to conjure a vision of 3 million, 3½ or 4 million people from Hong Kong suddenly appearing on our doorstep. It is most unlikely, even in an Armageddon situation, that they would all want to come to the United Kingdom. Even the Government have hinted that, if the worst comes to the worst, they would try to initiate some international response. Obviously, by 1997 there will be the opportunity for members of the European Community, with a population of about 240 million, and other immigrant-receiving countries such as Canada, Australia and the United States of America, to offer a generous response. If, however, a large number of Hong Kong people came here, their entrepreneurial and other skills would be an added asset to the economic and social wellbeing of this country.
Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is not present in the Chamber. In a recent BBC television programme called, "Hong Kong—A Matter of Honour", when pressed by the interviewer, he seemed to indicate that part or—perhaps—the whole reason for not giving the right of abode to those people was that it would "exacerbate ethnic tensions". There are perhaps shades of Enoch Powell there. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House would deplore any discrimination on ethnic grounds. Certainly, British public opinion seems to be more progressive than British governmental opinion in that respect. An opinion poll in the same television programme, which has been confirmed by subsequent opinion polls in the quality press, showed that the majority of the British people would be in favour of granting the right of abode.

1193
If the right of abode were granted, what would be the likely effect in Hong Kong? Some people have said that it would lead to depopulation or even mass exodus. In fact, there is a partial brain drain in Hong Kong already, because people do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Many skilled people, such as the managerial classes, are going to countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States for a period so as to qualify for the right of abode in those countries. Therefore, Hong Kong, temporarily at least, is being deprived of skills. More of those skilled people would stay in Hong Kong if they had the insurance policy of the right of abode in this country.
What would be the effect on the Government of the People's Republic of China if the right of abode in the United Kingdom were given to the people of Hong Kong? The Secretary of State referred to the self-interest of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong. I maintain that if we gave the right of abode to the people of Hong Kong it would act as a disincentive to the People's Republic of China to intervene in the internal affairs of Hong Kong. Currently, many people in Hong Kong have nowhere else to go, which might be a temptation to the People's Republic of China to intervene. Paradoxically, if people had the freedom to go elsewhere, China would be more likely to behave in a reasonable manner because the last thing that it wants is a mass exodus. If that happened, it would simply inherit a desert instead of a country with an economic future.
The right of abode would therefore be a disincentive to the People's Republic of China to intervene and to breach the Joint Declaration. It would also be a positive incentive to the people of Hong Kong to stay in Hong Kong, to build their future there and to have a stable, peaceful and fruitful relationship with the rest of China, with Britain and with the rest of the world.
7.10 pm
Sir .Julian Ridsdale: The Foreign Secretary, in his excellent and wise speech, said that the Joint Declaration of 1984 was a triumph of diplomacy. Yes, it was, but, in my right hon. and learned Friend's modest way, he did not speak of the great part that he played in that triumph. We should be grateful to him not only for his experience, but for the part that he played in negotiating the 1984 agreement. We should also be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his recent visit to Hong Kong. In the face of great difficulty, he resisted giving way to some demands that would have been extremely difficult to meet.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was important that we get deeds as well as words from China, which would be a clear message of assurance to the Hong Kong people, and that he hoped that that would happen as soon as possible. That is what we should aim to achieve. I know the tragedy of what happened in Tiananmen square—I know that square well, as I have visited it on many occasions. Over and above the tragedies that occurred, however, it is in the interests of Asia and in the interests of all of us that we get such an assurance from China as soon as possible.
Yes, the Joint Declaration of 1984, which is now seriously jeopardised, had international support and good will. All that was undermined by the happenings in Tiananmen square. I understand the deep anxiety felt by
1194
the Hong Kong citizens. I served there as a soldier at the outbreak of the 1939 war and I experienced the loyalty to the Crown given by its people. That loyalty was also expressed during the war and during the Falklands war. I appreciate the need for prompt action to restore confidence; otherwise the unique position of Hong Kong as a financial centre could be seriously harmed before 1997.
As the Foreign Secretary said, our problem now is to stop the exodus of essential personnel and the international community must also play its part. It is in our interests, in China's interests, and, in this independent, global world, in everyone's interest that we have international support. If we do, we will have a greater chance of keeping Hong Kong as a thriving financial centre, to the benefit not only of China but of the world. That is why I was glad that the Foreign Secretary underlined that that was one of the important questions that would be discussed at the summit meetings. That is the perfect opportunity for such a discussion and we are fortunate to have it.
I have visited China a number of times, but the visits I recall most are those that I made in 1979, 1987 and 1988. In 1987, I led an all-party delegation and I was fortunate enough to have the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as a member of that delegation. I understood the strong feelings he expressed when he made a statement to the House about the Chinese Government. When I visited China in 1979, I thought the conditions were austere, but the hon. Member for Warley, East told me that I should have been there a few years before, when things were much worse and contact even more difficult.
What a difference it was when we visited in 1987. There was investment in industry, and new hotels were being erected. I visited Peking and Shanghai and, in comparison to 1979, China had almost doubled her standard of living. I also met members of the People's Liberation Army. I was fortunate enough to take my young grandson aged 14 as a travelling companion. I can vividly recall the great reception we were given and how the Chinese Minister for Education sat him down on a couch and said that he could give my grandson a bird's eye view of China in 15 minutes.
When I visited China in 1988, even more change was taking place. There had been great economic progress, but it was noticeable that the Government were encountering difficulties, because at the same time as expansion had taken place, inflation was also rising.
I am sure that President Nixon, in his excellent article in The Sunday Times, was right when he said that we must keep our presence in China behind the wall. I had to deal with Japan when it was controlled by a military power. Where there are extremists, it is important to try to support liberals and others. One must not lose contact with such regimes, but one must also realise that one is not dealing with the same type of regime as is found in Europe; one is dealing with an establishment, not a democratic regime. We are fortunate that President Bush is at the summit, as he understands China so well. He was a China hand. He is a moderate, and he will understand only too well some of the difficulties that we face.
Despite the difficulties and the drama of recent months, we must keep in contact with China. It is easy to get political applause by saying that the events of recent months were horrific. They certainly were, but a friend of mine, a distinguished China hand, told me that such things had happened in China in the past 30 years. He said that

1195
there had been four or five such incidents in the past, but that modern communication had made democracy difficult for China. Modern communication has brought such events home. Therefore, we must ensure that we have the confidence to overcome the difficulties.
What a difference it is for me to consider Asia today, with the Pacific rim producing 40 per cent. of the world's gross national product, compared with the Asia of 50 years ago when I visited Hong Kong for the first time. I knew then that war was ahead of us and that, for Asia, disaster lay ahead. We have overcome those difficulties and the difficulties that we face now are much easier than those of the past.
I hope that we shall try to speed contacts with the Chinese Government, who are by no means all extremists. If we can do that, we shall achieve what my hon. and right hon. and learned Friend advocated. He is right to say that it is important that we get deeds as well as words from China, and that a clear message of assurance is given to the Hong Kong people as soon as possible. I hope that that happens, as it will be in the interests of China, Hong Kong, this nation and the world.
7.19 pm
Dr. David Owen: During the past few weeks the Foreign Secretary has been under attack over his handling of Hong Kong. It is not easy, at any time, to be Foreign Secretary, but he has conducted this difficult task with immense skill, patience and courage.
In the short time that I have I shall concentrate on our responsibilities which are clearly to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong up to and beyond 1997. When discussing this with the People's Republic of China, we are entitled to remind those people that when we entered into the 1984 agreement it related to them as well as to the people of Hong Kong.
When the British Government say to the Chinese Government, "We need to take these actions to retain that prosperity and stability" they must be prepared to listen to us because we all know that Hong Kong is immensely fragile and has always been so. Its confidence can dissipate very quickly. I well remember when there was a near-mutiny in the police forces in Hong Kong in October 1977. It was a very difficult situation and the quite exceptional governor at the time, the then Sir Murray MacLehose, who now sits in another place, argued strongly for a partial amnesty to be given to a large number of people who had all the appearance of being guilty. I was extremely dubious about his proposal and took a lot of persuading, but he was right. The partial amnesty restored confidence in Hong Kong and taught me a major lesson: we cannot apply to Hong Kong some of the standards of fairness and equity that we would normally apply to the governance of the United Kingdom.
How we restore confidence and our handling of the Select Committee report will be crucial. The Select Committee rightly said that the Government must exercise discretionary power to give some people right of entry into the United Kingdom as a confidence-building measure so that they will continue to contribute to the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that it will be immensely difficult to exercise that judgment. I do not like the expression
1196
"categorisation". How we exercise that discretion will be extremely difficult to justify to the House and Hong Kong. Frankly, it can be done only by the governor, who holds the necessary powers. He can directly advise the British Government and, through them, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. The governor must be given considerable discretionary power and, if necessary, we shall have to legislate for this.
The pace at which we make those discretionary judgments will depend on the most critical factor of all: the response of Peking. Perhaps we have not had enough discussion of the central importance of China in the restoration of confidence in Hong Kong. A few well-judged sentences, phrases and actions from Peking over the next few months could contribute more to the restoration of confidence than anything we do, even—begging his pardon—granting the right of abode of which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spoke.
We must be careful about using words such as "shabby" and "grubby" in this context. These are very difficult issues and, in my experience, the more politicians talk about morality, the more they lose touch with reality. We face very hard choices. We may have to be far more generous in giving Hong Kong citizens the right of entry over the next few years than any of us realises. We should not take too rigid a stance. If the position were to deteriorate considerably in China, we would have to be more generous and maintain the confidence of many more people in Hong Kong than we shall over the next few months.
I openly admit that I have no greater wisdom than any other hon. Member on this issue, but I believe that China will not revert to the cultural revolution. I do not believe that the Chinese Government will decide to forgo the substantial reforms that flowed from the third plenum in 1978. Modernisation of the economy will still be a major thrust of Chinese policy.
We should also remind ourselves that the third plenum made another decision: to give priority to economic modernisation and political stability. When we criticise Deng Xiaoping we should remember that, in his experience, students were not always the fount of all wisdom in China. There is an intense fear of instability in China.
That is no excuse for the massacre, which was almost beyond words to describe. The western world, Asia and, far more importantly, the people of China will not forget what happened in Tiananmen square. However, because what happened was wrong, it does not necessarily follow that a sequel of events in China will turn back the clock on the economic reforms.
It has always been clear that, unlike the leadership of the Soviet Union, the Chinese leadership is not aiming for serious glasnost or democratic reform, which I regret because I believe that it should. Violence, and the acceptability of violent behaviour, in China is not new. What the Chinese have been doing in Tibet over the past few years and months is little short of appalling in terms of human rights. Their support for Pol Pot in Cambodia was equally outrageous. We knew that when we negotiated the agreement in 1984. We took a judgment and hoped that the economic advantages of maintaining Hong Kong would be sufficient to justify it, but they may not be. If that is not so, the House will have to respond, as it responded to Uganda. We could not predict what was going to happen and, faced with General Amin, there was a

1197
humanitarian necessity for us to respond. That may be the case with China, although I wish that there was less talk of Armageddon and an horrendous future, which could prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a little more cautious belief that the changes that started in China in 1978 will not be reversed and that Hong Kong is an essential part of maintaining that economic modernisation.
Apart from his far too limited view about how we should use the flexibility of right of entry, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) spoke many wise words with which I agree—particularly his point about patience. We shall return to the issue of Hong Kong many times in the next eight years, and perhaps quite a few times in the next year, when the situation will be fraught. All that I beg of the House is to be confident in the Foreign Secretary's capacity to handle this matter. There will be a difficult judgment to make on the trade mission. I hope the Foreign Secretary meets his Chinese counterpart as soon as is humanly possible, certainly at the United Nations in September and, arguably, before.
We must weigh carefully the issue of how to handle economic and trade matters. The Government are right not to have applied economic sanctions to China, and to have followed the rest of the world and the United States in holding off from doing so. At the economic summit, the fact that we have not applied sanctions can be used to explain to China that we shall see how it responds to Hong Kong as a litmus test for whether it will continue with economic modernisation and whether the world will help in its economic modernisation.
If we could obtain an expression of good will that, in the event of an Armageddon, there would be a world response, all well and good. I say to the Chairman of the Select Committee that it will be almost impossible to convince other Governments to make a commitment to accept the residents of other countries in advance of the holocaust. The most that we shall receive is a general expression of solidarity. The Chairman of the Select Committee is right to say that we shall see these forced migrations in many parts of the world for many different reasons and will have to learn how to respond to them internationally.
Confidence in Hong Kong is a fundamental issue. We can help to achieve this. It is not a matter of money. People in the public health service, education, social services, the transportation system, and the management of the stock exchange and commodity markets are all crucial to the economic prosperity and the social stability of Hong Kong. If it helps them to retain their jobs until 1997 and beyond, this country must be generous and give them that confidence.
7.29 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: Before I come to the main theme of our debate, I want to say a word about the boat people in Hong Kong. This is a painful and intractable problem, but, speaking for myself, I think that we must draw the line against forcible repatriation. We cannot accept that. Older Members will recall the forcible repatriation of the Cossacks and the Cherniks. No one would suggest that someone escaping across the Berlin wall should he sent back. At one human rights conference after another, our representatives speak of the right of emigration. If the newspapers are to be believed, we are
1198
proposing to give a per capita grant to Vietnam for every Vietnamese repatriated. We had much better spend the money getting them decent accommodation in Hong Kong or elsewhere until a more sensible solution to the problem can be found.
The growth of business ties with China, the fact that for many years it appeared to be almost an ally against Brezhnev's imperialism, and the spread of tourism, all fostered the illusion that the Chinese dragon had become the sleeping beauty—but it was always an illusion. I am probably the last British officer who served on Chiang Kai Shek's staff. I have no illusions about the brutality of his regime at times, and the Maoist-Communist revolution was more bloodstained even than the Leninist-Stalinist one. We should not be too surprised at what has happened. I was a little surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that he was stunned by what had happened. Perhaps he should have had a slightly less naive view of the situation.
There is undoubtedly widespread discontent in China. It manifested itself first in Tibet. It arose not only in Peking and Shanghai—it was also to be seen in many of the provincial towns. This was no little local difficulty. That much is made clear by the official propaganda which denounces the counter-revolutionary plot and, rather than trying to play down what has happened, tends, if anything, to build it up.
The regime was clearly scared, because there appears to have been a moment of fatal hesitation when it did not react. Had it reacted more quickly there might have been less bloodshed. But the Chinese Government were not sure what to do. Were there divisions in the party and in the army? In a curious way I was reminded of General de Gaulle flying to Baden when I heard that Deng Xiaoping had flown to Wuhan to see the generals and recall the veterans of the long march. Perhaps order has been restored—if so, it is under a fairly elderly and old-fashioned leadership.
I shall not attempt to prophesy that China will return to warlordism, but the country has a history of instability, not just in the old days but under the Communist regime—under Mao, Lin Xiao Xhi and all the others. What has caused this instability? I suppose it is the difficulty of reconciling economic progress and political stability. That has been exacerbated by external influences—by business connections and by students going abroad, but perhaps more importantly by the influence of Taiwan. I believe that there were more than 300,000 Taiwanese visitors to the mainland last year. Perhaps above all, there has been the influence of Hong Kong, with its free press and vocal political views.
When it comes to the crunch between promoting prosperity or retaining political power for the party, we have seen that the regime opts for retaining political power, even at some damage to the chances of prosperity. This is awkward for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and for all of us, because the basic calculation on which the Anglo-Chinese arrangement was made was that it was manifestly in China's interest that Hong Kong should continue as a prosperous capitalist centre and that "one country, two systems" was obviously what the future of China required. However, when a regime opts in favour of retaining political power at the expense of promoting prosperity, it is no wonder the people in Hong Kong are anxious.

1199
What can we do? Looking back, I sometimes wonder if we were right—I say "looking back" because I did not think this at the time—to surrender sovereignty as completely as we did. Of course, we could not have defended Hong Kong against attack, or even siege, but there might have been a Rubicon that Peking would have hesitated to cross.
I shall advance three suggestions of what we might do. They fit in well with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, although perhaps I put them a little more brutally. We want an autonomous regime in Hong Kong of a kind which could continue after 1997. It must be equipped with its own security force, including perhaps a gendarmerie. Perhaps Hong Kong could even afford to employ some Gurkhas. The force should be of sufficient strength that any attempt to subvert Hong Kong from the inside, or to advance against it from the outside, would be visible to the whole world. There must be no Chinese army garrison inside Hong Kong, at any rate until the 50-year period is over. Beyond that, it is worth considering the interests of other countries in Hong Kong. The Germans, the Japanese and not least the Americans all have massive investments there. Could we not persuade them to underwrite the basic agreement that we have concluded with the Chinese Government? We hope, too—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that there is reason to hope this—that the Chinese will return to the good sense that led them to make the agreement originally.
If we fail, we shall face the problem of the right of abode much more clearly than we do today. Much has been said about it. I hope that I shall not be thought wet or lacking in determination if I do not pronounce on it today. We have time. I should like to see how matters develop and what the Chinese Government do to restore confidence in Hong Kong. Only yesterday they tried to give reassurances, at the same time saying that Hong Kong must be careful not to become a nurse to anti-Communist propaganda. That was not reassuring.
Let us see how the situation develops. The problem is with us for a long time to come. It will return to the House of Commons and I hope that the Government will bring it back to the House when we meet again in the new Session after November.
7.38 pm
Mr. James Lamond: I believe that we have a strong moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong. I think that every hon. Member realises that, but many are wriggling and trying to avoid facing up to it by making proposals which they think the people of Hong Kong should accept as a basis for future confidence in the behaviour of the Chinese People's Republic. It is very easy to lecture people in Hong Kong about how confident they should be, but it is revealing when we see the Foreign Secretary admitting on television that if he lived with his family in Hong Kong, he would be looking for an insurance policy.
Conservative Members who are so eager to suggest to the people of Hong Kong that they should have confidence should ask themselves how they react when they are asked to have confidence in the new regime in the Soviet Union and its policy of disarmament. Is there a ready acceptance
1200
of the new regime, confidence in it and attention to its words? Of course there is not. All we get is the cry of caution—nothing can be done until everything has been proved and every t crossed and every i dotted. Only then will they have confidence. However, the people of Hong Kong should have confidence in the face of what they saw on their televisions a month ago.
I base my case on morality. Ten minutes ago, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has now left the Chamber, told us that when he hears politicians speak of morality, he thinks that they are departing from reality. When I hear people saying that we must face up to the reality of the situation, I feel that they are departing from morality, and morality is an extremely important part of a politician's make-up.
The people of Hong Kong must have a real basis for confidence. What better way to find out what they require than to ask them and to listen to what they say? Is there any doubt in anyone's mind about what would build the confidence of the people of Hong Kong? It is an extension of the right of abode in this country if they need it. I strongly support that. I advocate that it should be extended to them.
I know that that is contrary to my party's policy, but I believe that morally that is what should be done, and I will not justify it on the basis that perhaps only a few of them will come, so we need not worry about it. We have a moral responsibility, it should be faced up to and we should accept that we may have to meet it in full. If we have to do that, we shall have to ask the British people to make tremendous sacrifices. Are we so afraid of the morality of the British people that we cannot put that to them?
I represent a constituency in the north-west of England. What gives me most pride in that is something that I used as the theme of my maiden speech. It was the tremendous moral conduct of the textile workers in that area during the American civil war, when they refused to touch or work with the cotton brought here from the southern states, because they were against slavery. Because of their principles about what was happening in a country an ocean away, their children went hungry. Their houses were taken from them, but they did not flinch from that moral stance. I look back on that with the utmost pride.
I should like to think that, in the future, when people look back on this episode in history, they will not see that we tried to dodge our moral responsibility by saying, "Well, I am not sure that we have moral responsibilities," as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said. I was astounded by that. I would have thought that he, of all people, would accept this moral responsibility. If we do not face up to it, this will be a black chapter in our history, and the people who come after us will look back and say that we did a dishonourable act.
7.44 pm
Mr. James Couchman: This country has a long and honourable record of providing a haven to those who are persecuted, subjugated or in other ways intimidated or discriminated against for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. That is entirely proper, for such persecution or discrimination forms the kernel of the reasons for granting refugee status.
Three groups of such refugees can be instanced quite easily and serve to illustrate our record of compassion. The

1201
first group was the Huguenots, who fled Europe three centuries ago to escape religious persecution, the second the Jews who came from eastern Europe to escape racist and religious persecution. In recent years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, came the third group—the Asians from East Africa who came here when those countries were Africanising their economies. Interestingly, those groups have generally prospered and made a considerable contribution to the country that gave them sanctuary.
Recently, we have played a large part in settling a substantial number of Vietnamese boat people. However, the people of Hong Kong do not qualify as political refugees, because they are not persecuted, subjugated or discriminated against. I do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State could grant right of entry or abode to the 3·25 million Hong Kong British citizens, either on the basis of political asylum, or under the discretion of the Home Secretary. Without doubt, he would be acting ultra vires.
Those of us who unequivocally supported the Joint Declaration in 1984 as a pragmatic, realistic and even elegant solution to the problem of how to secure the safety of the Hong Kong people beyond 1997 were encouraged in our support by the open door policy then being followed by China and by its new-found enthusiasm for strengthening its relationships with the rest of the world. We prayed that there would be no return to the madnesses of the cultural revolution, which would damage confidence in Hong Kong. In 1986, a number of my hon. Friends and I expressed concern at the creation of the British national (overseas) status, but we voted for it and kept our fingers crossed that China would maintain its progress towards modernisation and improving international relationships.
Earlier this year, before the flowering of the pro-democracy movement in China, reports of diminishing confidence in the Joint Declaration in Hong Kong reached us. However, we were inclined to dismiss such reports as a sign of Hong Kong volatility. Now, after the ghastly events of 3 and 4 June, confidence in Hong Kong is shattered and the demands for right of abode have risen to a crescendo. To grant such right of abode to all those who might claim it would, as I said earlier, be ultra vires.
What can we do to restore confidence? I am much attracted by the search of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) for an international solution, with assurance given in advance by a number of nations. As my right hon. Friend said, it might be necessary for those international assurances to be honoured in circumstances well short of the Armageddon scenario, and perhaps before 1 July 1997, if events in China become so alarming that confidence in the Joint Declaration breaks down completely. In any case, if the agreement breaks down beyond 1997, it is most unlikely that the People's Republic of China will allow the Hong Kong people to leave, and a new and terrifying armada of small boats will take to the seas with a new boat people.
If such an eventuality came to pass, so that that international assurance had to be honoured, it is without doubt that Britain would need to give a substantial lead, taking a large proportion of those who wished to leave. Should we regard this with fear, or should we welcome the prospect of an influx of skilful and hard-working people who might help to bridge the shortage of modern skills that confronts industry, particularly when our pool of young and entrant labour diminishes as dramatically as it
1202
will do? Perhaps we should encourage a greater number of Hong Kong people to bring their skills and energies to this country, not as refugees from an Armageddon situation but through an orderly influx over a period of time.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made clear in his statesmanlike and persuasive speech, if we wait for Armageddon, the skilled and the entrepreneurial will have long since left Hong Kong and gone to the States, Canada, Australia or almost anywhere but the United Kingdom. We will need to offer entry under circumstances well short of catastrophe in return for a commitment to stay in Hong Kong until 1997 or until such time as international opinion believes that circumstances in China have deteriorated to the point where international agreements and assurances are triggered.
It may be necessary to change the present law to enable us to give such an assurance to the Hong Kong people. So be it; that will be the price of maintaining our international integrity. As others wiser than 1 have said, there is no doubt that the international community looks to us for a lead in the matter of Hong Kong, and we must not disappoint them.
7.50 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: I was not in the House during the period leading up to and following the signing of the joint agreement with China, but I have taken the trouble to read extensively the debates and statements of the past 10 years. The picture that appeared was of the Government and the Opposition engaged in an orgy of self-congratulation; complacency abounded; the best of all possible solutions had been found. That is the message that strikes the reader of the records.
While it was acknowledged that the people of Hong Kong had no real choice but to accept the agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and China, the underlying theme was that a sophisticated and skilled United Kingdom team had obtained a good deal from a Chinese Government undergoing a profound change and a Chinese Communist party which no longer held the view that the only power worth exercising was that which came from the barrel of a gun. The skill of the United Kingdom, the deep changes within the ruling groups of China, and the text of the agreement were supposed, in themselves, to provide the foundation upon which the people of Hong Kong could place faith and reliance and maintain their sense of security and confidence in the future. What we have in fact, long before the fateful date of 1997, is a manifest failure of that agreement to maintain the Hong Kong people's sense of security and confidence and I am not surprised.
When the United Kingdom Government entered into negotiations, they made a monumental error of judgment about the nature and character of the Chinese Communist party. The Government suspended their critical faculties. The party that had created the human misery associated with the great leap forward, the blooming and then the cutting down of intellectuals, and the disaster of the cultural revolution, was accepted at face value when it claimed to have changed beyond recognition. Our Government and Opposition did not have the ability to look below the surface of the slogan, "Socialism with a Chinese face" to see that it represented only a disguise. What the Hong Kong people got from the British contribution to their fate was not a sophisticated analysis

1203
of the Chinese Communist party and its workings and internal tensions, but an overdose of naivety. The British missed altogether the sort of evidence then available—which was quoted on page 146 of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on 20 April—from a group called "1997 Concerns."
Deng Xiaoping said in 1988:
"don't think that all of Hong Kong's affairs will be managed by Hong Kong, with the central government sitting idly by, and everything will be just fine. This is not acceptable. This type of attitude is not practical.… Can you imagine that there will be no obstructions or destructive forces in Hong Kong? I see no grounds for such self consolation."
Against that hard-headed dose of realpolitik, the Hong Kong people got naivety. The Foreign Secretary conjured up visions of passing on Hong Kong, like a precious Ming vase, to his Chinese team mates, as he described them.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), said:
"Secondly, we should acknowledge the essence of the joint declaration that, from 1 July 1997, the People's Republic of China will be sovereign. Some hon. Members have said that that means that the Chinese Government can do anything they wish, but, as others have said, there are constraints on them. Our responsibility is to secure all the safeguards that we can, realise their limitations … and ensure that the Basic Law corresponds as much as possible with the spirit and letter of the joint declaration. After that it is a matter of trust.
In Beijing, the Government of the People's Republic of China described their signature of the joint declaration as a solemn commitment. I accept their sincerity—much more than I do that of the present British Government on a number of issues."—[Official Report, 15 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 754.]
Whatever one might say about the Thatcher Government, we have not yet had tanks and machine guns in the streets.
The hon. Gentleman spoke those words in this Chamber only one year ago. None is so blind and deaf as he who does not wish to see or hear.
The truth is now emerging. Far from the cosy, cordial, open relationship where trust could be assumed, the Foreign Secretary said to the Select Committee on 14 June, at page 351 of the minutes of evidence:
"Everything one says about China, even in communications as open as they were before the atrocious events of a couple of weeks ago, is less than perfect; one is looking through a thousand glasses darkly."
Bearing in mind his previous statement about Hong Kong being like a precious Ming vase passed from hand to hand, we wonder at his choice of metaphor when he now tells us that it was never easy to see the other side to which we are handing the vase.
Let us consider the reality faced by the people of Hong Kong, over whom we have absolute power and for whom we have absolute responsibility now and until 1997. There is to be a transfer of territory. There is to be, uniquely, a transfer of people against their will. The territory and the people will be placed under Chinese sovereignty. The Chinese have promised not to derogate sovereignty, but to exercise it within an agreed framework of autonomy, which they will set up in consultation with the people of Hong Kong but with the final version resting with them as the sovereign power. Britain will issue people in Hong Kong with passports purporting to give them a form of British nationality, but without the benefits of a real national. In fact, those passports will offer no British protective cover in Hong Kong.
It is an unenforceable agreement. I stand open to correction, but I am certain that China's arrangement for
1204
the International Court of Justice to have jurisdiction over certain matters will not cover a breach of the agreement. Even if I am not correct in that, we all know that in recent cases, such as the United States against Nicaragua, and Iran against the United States on the issue of hostages, the ICJ had no remedies because it had no sanctions to apply. The much-vaunted Joint Declaration cannot be enforced by Britain, but it can be broken by the Chinese. People say that the Chinese keep their agreements. They might keep their external agreements but, as Tibet has shown, they do not keep their internal agreements when they have sovereignty.
The unenforceable agreement makes the Hong Kong Chinese people hostages to fortune. The Government and the Opposition have tenaciously clung to the idea that those people cannot have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. The Foreign Secretary has said that there are many problems. We accept that there are practical problems, but they are mostly about resource pressure on important social services. There is a practical way out of that practical problem. We should give the right of abode and simultaneoulsy establish a Hong Kong investment fund, similar in character and objectives to the Kuwaiti investment fund, which has grown enormously over the years, to create a capitial resource which would allow us, in the event of Armageddon, to go to the British people and international community and suggest that they take not just the people of Hong Kong but the help of the capital resources to overcome the practical problems that have been described. If we do not give the people of Hong Kong the right of abode, we shall do them a great evil.
8 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in his place because I wish to refer to his claim that Parliament shrugs its shoulders at Hong Kong. That that is not true has been shown by this deeply serious debate in which hon. Members have shown much concern. It would be a great pity if the message that we do not care were to go to the people of Hong Kong. The message that we want to send to them is that we understand the anguish and trauma that they feel as a result of the massacre in Tiananmen square and we understand why they feel that way.
In return, I ask something of them. One sometimes sees reports of the questioning in Hong Kong of British motivation in relation to Hong Kong. It is alleged that the British Government, indeed the British Parliament, attach more importance to increasing British trade with China than to securing a good future for Hong Kong. Having had some experience as a Minister responsible for Hong Kong, and having followed the subject all my political career—indeed I was born there and have followed it all my life—I can confirm with great confidence that that allegation is untrue. The motivation of this Government, as of previous Governments, has been to secure the best possible future for Hong Kong. Not only is the allegation untrue; it is a deeply unwise allegation for anyone in Hong Kong to make. It results in a self-inflicted wound because it damages confidence inside Hong Kong.
If one were to consider the matter on a purely commercial basis—which I am not—and examined the difference in trade between Britain and China and Britain and Hong Kong, it would be seen that we sell to China less than half what we sell to Hong Kong. On a commercial

1205
basis, it would be folly if the British Government sought to improve our trade with China at the expense of Hong Kong.
The restoration of confidence in Hong Kong is one of the most difficult questions that we have had to face in our overseas deliberations for some time. The issue of right of abode is extremely difficult. I have to say to my friends in Hong Kong that the right of abode on the basis that they are seeking it is unattainable. Parliament simply would not pass the legislation required to give them what they have been asking for. The British people would not understand if it were proposed by the Government. That is a sober analysis of the position as I see it. Almost nobody in the House believes that we could do it. Almost nobody outside the House believes that we should do it. That is not because of any hostility towards the people of Hong Kong, for whom the many of us who know them have a deep respect. They are energetic, creative and active people. It is simply because of the sensitivity in Britain about the problem of immigration, resulting from the events of the past 30 years or more, and because of the sheer numbers that are being discussed. I hope that the Government will succeed in finding a satisfactory flexible solution, but I fear it must fall far short of what the people of Hong Kong have been asking for.
A point that has been implicit in many speeches is that the disadvantage of the present system, which allows people to go from Hong Kong to Britain—although not many come—Australia, Canada and the United States is that to establish residence rights or citizenship they have to live in the country of their choice. That is bad for Hong Kong because it loses some of its best people. I hope that in seeking a flexible solution the Government will bear that in mind.
The Government are right to consult other countries of good will on assurances that could be given so that the people of Hong Kong might have the prospect of moving elsewhere in the event of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary described as a fundamental and overwhelming violation of the Joint Declaration.
Let me deal now with the prospects for faster direct elections in Hong Kong. I have said from the beginning that the second draft of the Basic Law was wrong in that respect. It was much too slow. The erection of a hurdle in the form of a referendum was a serious mistake.
It is important that the people of Hong Kong should arrive at a consensus on that question. The consensus of 24 May produced by OMELCO was an important step forward. I would go so far as to say that simply achieving another consensus may be more important than precisely what the consensus is, because it would be a powerful factor in the minds of the members of the Basic Law drafting committee.
On the question of the Vietnamese boat people, there should be an understanding that mandatory repatriation is right in the case of economic migrants. I am glad to say that the position is supported by the Save the Children Fund, so I am not speaking as somebody who has no compassion. We must obtain assurances from Vietnam that there will be no victimisation. Arrangements must exist which will give confidence that those assurances will be observed. However, I find the attitude of the United States Government and Congress on that matter incomprehensible and illogical. I hope that my right hon.
1206
and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will make it clear to the Americans that that is the view of many hon. Members.
The United States says that the people now coming to Hong Kong are, for the most part, economic migrants and so do not qualify for resettlement in the United States. But it stops short at the point when it should go on. It should say that it is permissible and correct to repatriate them, as other economic migrants who have come without the benefit of visas are repatriated all over the world. They are certainly repatriated if they cross the Mexican border with the United States. Those economic migrants who come from Haiti in boats are sent straight back when they land on the coast of Florida. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will pursue that matter.
I am confident that by 1997 the future of Hong Kong will be that described in the Joint Declaration. We are familiar with the arguments about China's self-interest. China's economic self-interest is even stronger now than it was two or three months ago because it has severely damaged its economy by the events of Tiananmen square. Equally, the Taiwan factor is as strong as it has been for so many years.
I want to say something about an argument for history. It has never been true that freedom in Hong Kong has depended on democracy in China. There has been no democracy in China at any time that I can think of, certainly not in the past 148 years. The concept of "one country, two systems" is based on the assumption that China is likely to remain Communist. That is what it is all about. Therefore, we need not imagine that it is essential that China should be democratic for Hong Kong to have confidence in the future.
During all the turmoil of the past eighty years—the civil war, the arrival of Mao Tse-Tung at the border of Hong Kong in 1949 when no one knew whether he would stop or carry on into Hong Kong, the Korean war when Britain was at war with China, the United Nations trade embargo during the Korean war, the great leap forward, the cultural revolution and the Red Guards—during all that time China has not laid a finger on Hong Kong. In 1967, when the local Hong Kong Communists thought they could take the place over by a campaign of bombing and rioting, Peking positively discouraged them.
In all that time, Hong Kong was governed by "unequal" treaties—so described by China. Now that there is the "equal" treaty of 1984, why should we imagine that China is more likely to cut its own economic throat than it was during those 80 years?
We must remember that Hong Kong has come through times equally as alarming as the present, if not more so. If confidence is preserved, Hong Kong can come through this crisis, too. We have an obligation to do everything that we can to help preserve confidence. I ask the people of Hong Kong, as an act of will, to be confident. There is some will power involved, and it is for the people of Hong Kong to decide that they will keep their chins up.
The country that is best placed to help to restore confidence in Hong Kong is China itself, and it has much to gain from doing so. Recently, China reaffirmed the "one country, two system" concept. What we need now from China are practical steps and deeds, as well as more words of confidence.
8.10 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The events that occurred in Peking on 4 June overshadow our debate and hang like a black cloud over the people of Hong Kong, but while those events remain firmly in our minds, we must take the longer perspective and try to place them in the context of the Joint Declaration signed in 1984, the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, and the 50-year treaty which will then come into force.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that there is a unique aspect to the Hong Kong problem. Unlike all other former British colonies, the goal of independence that we have faithfully pursued across the globe for the past 40 years, since 1947, is not available to the people of Hong Kong because the lease on the new territories expires in 1997 and because China has never recognised the unequal treaties under which Hong Kong island and Kowloon were ceded in the 1840s. The result of the 1984 negotiations and the debates in the House that followed them was not independence but a treaty which guaranteed virtually total autonomy to Hong Kong for a 50-year period on the basis of the "one country, two-systems" formula.
I do not agree with the statement of the right hon. Member for Yeovil that Parliament handed over the people of Hong Kong naked to the tyranny of a Communist country. That is not so at all, and such an assertion flies in the face of everything that we set out to achieve and, indeed, accomplished. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House agreed that we should maintain for the people of Hong Kong substantial and almost total autonomy under one of the most remarkable treaties ever signed. That treaty granted the continuation of a separate economic system in Hong Kong. Even more important, it secured the continuity of Hong Kong's laws, system of justice, and independent legislature, based on Hong Kong itself.
One of our major concerns must be to ensure that the autonomy embodied in the Joint Declaration is fully translated into the precise language of the Basic Law, which is still in draft form. Weeks before the events in Tiananmen square, I reached the conclusion—as, I suspect, did many other right hon. and hon. Members—that the present draft of the Basic Law is inadequate and needs to incorporate stronger guarantees against any possible Chinese intervention based on the legalities of the Basic Law. It also needs to enact a Bill of Rights.
Above all, the Basic Law must provide for Hong Kong's legislature to be directly elected before 1997. That is why we and the Select Committee reject in terms the doctrine of mirror imaging, whereby the Hong Kong Administration and the British Government pretended to make proposals about democracy in particular only in so far as they thought that those proposals coincided with the intentions of the Chinese Government. We called for the people of Hong Kong themselves to determine the nature, extent and timetable for introducing democracy before 1997.
The crucial additional question that the Select Committee faced, and which now confronts the House, is whether, after the events of 4 June, the Chinese Government can still be trusted. Will they renege on their commitments? Will they tear up the treaty? Will they impose their authoritarian rule on Hong Kong? My view still is that they will do none of those things. That view is
1208
not based on any optimistic appraisal of the character of China's present Government. It is suggested by the immense blow to China's interests that would be struck if they were to violate the Hong Kong treaty.
Hong Kong is immensely important to China's economy. It is like a powerful tugboat, pulling the great liner of continental China towards greater economic growth and prosperity. It would be madness for the Chinese Government to tear up an agreement that guarantees continuity of Hong Kong's prosperity and progress. Perhaps the ultimate guarantee for Hong Kong is that if China tore up the treaty it would put paid for ever to the Chinese Government's cherished hopes of ultimately seeing the reincorporation of Taiwan into China.
What if, despite all those considerations, a disaster occurred? I have wrestled with my conscience, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members have done with theirs, as to the extent of our obligation. There must have been many occasions in the past when we have launched a new nation into independence knowing very well that there could be no guarantee that after independence that nation would be safe either from internal tyranny or from external aggression, but on no previous occasion have we felt that our obligation to a former colony extended to offering a right of abode in Britain to all its inhabitants in the event of a disaster. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect Britain to extend such a guarantee to Hong Kong now.
Any individual who is threatened or who has reason to fear persecution because of his political views should, of course, make use of our open-door policy. However, we have accepted that there is a difference between the granting of independence and the granting of autonomy, however strong we believe the treaty guaranteeing that autonomy to be. That is why the Select Committee called for Britain to take the lead in organising an international safety net if, after 1997, China tears up the 1984 treaty. For Britain alone to give such a guarantee would be unconvincing to Hong Kong and unacceptable to the bulk of our own people. If the burden can be shared with Canada, Australia, the United States and the European Community, it will provide a much broader base on which a refuge of last resort can he based. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will, as he has promised, enter into an early and serious dialogue with all our partners in helping to provide the safety underpinning that Hong Kong needs.
8.19 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: The events of 4 June in Peking were undoubtedly significant for the history of China, both internally and externally. The first and most obvious point to make is that they illustrated, graphically and horrifically, the concern felt by many outside observers about the disparity between the movement towards economic liberalisation and the lack of movement towards political liberalisation. It would be immodest of me to refer to comments that I made in a book that I wrote in 1984 called "All Change in Hong Kong", but I do not think that I was alone in recognising the dangers that China faced. What we are now discussing is the effect of what seemed to many an inevitable crisis, and what that effect will be on the people of Hong Kong.
Hon. Members are normally required, at the beginning of speeches, to declare any interest that they may have. I

1209
suppose that my chairmanship of the British-Chinese parliamentary group could be construed as a political interest; in any event, for those of us who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and many others in the House, have watched with interest the development of politics in China during the past few years, to see China knock itself off the pedestal on which we have placed it has been a cause of grave concern.
I refer not to the Chinese Government but to the Chinese people when I say that our succour and support are needed at this time. Whatever we may fear for the future of the people of Hong Kong, 1 feel that we should spare—in spades—a thought for that of the Chinese, living as they do under a Government who are prepared to resort to shooting their own unarmed citizens. The Chinese Government have lost not only their credibility throughout the world, but their credibility among their own people.
I allow myself only a minor jest when I recall that, over the past few years, I have had the pleasure of showing Mr. Hu Yaobang and Mr. Zhao Ziyang round this building and chairing meetings with them, only to find subsequently that they had been disgraced. Perhaps the House should invite Li Peng to pay us a visit: he might share their fate. There can be few people who are more unpopular in China at present.
Our debate has highlighted the difference between those with political responsibility—or the expectation of it—and those who have been willing to exercise their moral judgment without, perhaps, contemplating the effect of such a luxury on opinion in both Hong Kong and Peking. I implore hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember that, although the words we speak here are being spoken in a debating Chamber, they may have more of an impact on people living on the other side of the world than we are accustomed to expect of our speeches. Our criticisms of the Chinese Government should be objective; our actions—if there is any point in saying such a thing—should be designed to help the process of change in China, rather than to help ourselves to clear our consciences with breast-beating. That is of no use to the people of China who are suffering now.
Our message to the Chinese Government should perhaps be this: that they should understand that we understand that, on the one hand, overt external criticism is likely to be counter-productive, but, on the other hand, we appreciate their need for western technology. Perhaps the most useful action that the House can take is to allow them to contemplate how they will set the balance between what we say to them and what they need from us.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the paramount need for China to ensure that Hong Kong remains prosperous and stable; the point does not need to be laboured. It is, however, the key to Hong Kong's future. The only certain way in which to undermine that stability and prosperity is to destroy Hong Kong's value to China: that was the purport of my intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Sadly, some people in Hong Kong seem to aim unerringly in that direction, and I do not believe that they serve the real interests of the people of Hong Kong.
China's role in Hong Kong's future is not a matter of debate: it is a matter of fact. The 1984 Joint Declaration was and remains the only basis on which Hong Kong has any prospect of maintaining its stability and prosperity. Words such as "obligation" and "honour" may be used,
1210
but 1997 has always been in prospect. If I move into a house with a finite lease, my options will be limited when that lease ends: I can only hope that the leaseholder can negotiate my continued occupancy with the freeholder. That is the role that the British Government have seen themselves trying to play, and the role that, so far, they have been able to play. If we dare to send a message to the people of Hong Kong, let it be that, if it is necessary to live with a giant, sticking pins through his ankle may not be the best way of reaching an accommodation with him.
Talk of renegotiating the Joint Declaration strikes me as unhelpful; whether we can improve the Basic Law through negotiation is an altogether different matter, but our probes must be constructed within the realistic bounds of China's bottom line— that is, the maintenance or re-establishment of sovereignty after 1997. Demanding of the Chinese that they do not station the People's Liberation Army in the territory must, in my view, seriously impinge on the sovereignty issue, and 1 find it hard to believe that they would be prepared to allow any such clause to be negotiated into any agreement.
It is fashionable in certain quarters in Hong Kong, and even in this country, to impugn or deride the integrity of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. That, I think, both insults the man and assaults an intelligent assessment of the situation, and those in Hong Kong who are leading the verbal attacks on my right hon. and learned Friend demean only themselves.
The 1989 scenario, as I have said, has always been there. June 1989 has created a climate of wholly understandable fear in Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), however, made the shrewd and telling point that Hong Kong has never been dependent on—has never enjoyed the luxury of living in its dependency on—a democratic China. Deng Xiaoping is 84 years old, and there will undoubtedly be more change in China long before 1997.
The Chinese now face a double-generation gap, between the octogenarians on the one hand and the students on the other. Time is undoubtedly on the side of China's youth. In the long run, that will be good for both China and Hong Kong, but do not let us delude ourselves into believing that stability in Hong Kong is in any way dependent on the emergence of what we call a democratic regime in China. Extravagant gestures and statements are rarely good guides in foreign policy.
There is no such thing—in Hong Kong, China, Britain or anywhere else—as a cast-iron guarantee for the future. I have always believed that the main threat to Hong Kong's future stability and prosperity comes not from China or Britain but from some of its own people, who—as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said in what was a shrewd and serious speech—seem to enjoy peddling the Armageddon scenario. I hope that the harbingers of doom in Hong Kong do not create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
8.29 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyl Tydfil and Rhymney): Throughout the Select Committee's inquiry we kept returning to a basic but fundamental question: what is the nature of our obligation towards the people of Hong Kong, given, as my right hon. Friend the Member for

1211
Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) reminded the House in his speech, the unique position in which Hong Kong finds itself?
It was my privilege for a number of years to be a Minister with responsibility for our relationships with a number of dependent territories, though they did not include Hong Kong. During the years that I had that privilege, there was a choice for the dependent territories. Either they could choose to make progress towards independence at the pace that they decided for themselves or—the Falklands is a case in point—they had the right not to change. They demanded that right. In 1982, we fought a war on behalf of that right. The problem is that Hong Kong does not and cannot fit into those general characteristics. Self-determination cannot take place because of the curious leasehold relationship.
Given the existence of those unique characteristics, how do we fulfil our obligations towards the people of Hong Kong? I endorse the thrust of the policy, through the Joint Declaration and the draft Basic Law, to establish an autonomous Hong Kong region. Whenever one tries to devise an autonomous constitution, there are always grey areas of responsibility, sovereignty and division of power. In the case of Hong Kong and China, those grey areas were much larger, even before the terrible events of June. Now they are really large, particularly in relation to the changes that are required to the draft Basic Law.
I shall illustrate what is required by referring to one change that the Foreign Secretary mentioned. I am glad that he referred to it again today because he rather muffled what he said last week about article 157—that the interpretation of the Basic Law must be placed in the hands of a joint constitutional court, not in the hands of the Legislative Assembly of the People's Republic of China. That point had arisen even before the June massacre, but now it is a fundamental requirement in any further redrafting of the Basic Law.
The establishment of democratic institutions in Hong Kong must be an integral part of the autonomous character of Hong Kong after 1997. After all that has been achieved, will there be a residual obligation? I believe that there will. However, I do not believe that either the Select Committee or the Government are prepared fully to meet that obligation.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that the present Government cannot bind future Governments over the thorny issue of immigration. There were sage nods when he said that, as though it were an absolute truth. However, when any Government sign a treaty, all future Governments are automatically bound by the terms of that treaty. This treaty is no different from any other treaty. It will bind future Governments, whether Labour or Conservative, to fulfil the obligations under the treaty. Those obligations do not come to an end in 1997. We shall be a party to the treaty after 1997.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) referred to the relationship between the leaseholder and the freeholder. He implied that the British Government had been a broker between the leaseholder and the freeholder. That is not an accurate description of the arrangements that are being put in place. The British
1212
Government are a party to the whole deal. They are a party to the lease after 1997 just as much as they are a party to it up to 1997.
How does one fulfil any post-1997 obligation? If the British Government of the day consider that there has been a breach of the treaty or that there is a danger that the spirit and nature of the arrangements are being breached, they will be under an obligation to react in a number of ways. They will have to try to prevent any further breaches by making strenuous representations—diplomatic, political and international.
If the breaches continue, what ought the British Government to do then? A future British Government would be under a residual obligation, because they would be bound by a treaty signed by this Government to make arrangements to deal with the possible desire by a large number of people to leave Hong Kong. I do not support the notion of the right of automatic abode in this country at any time. If we give an automatic right of abode to the people of Hong Kong, that will not be an insurance policy, but I believe in an insurance policy of one kind—that if the treaty is breached, certain obligations will fall upon us, however unpalatable and inescapable they may be.
We must ask ourselves a simple question: does that right of abode mean that this country must just be kind, nice and enthusiastic about the people of Hong Kong and treat those who wish to leave Hong Kong as refugees? I do not believe that we should be fulfilling our obligations after 1997, however generous we were and whatever international efforts we made, if we dealt with them only as refugees. They will, of course, have all the characteristics of refugees and they will leave Hong Kong in a hurry at various times. Paragraph 4.16, which appeared in the draft report but which was eventually removed from it, said:
"A particular option which we would like to see the British Government explore within the European Community is the possibility of granting to the BDTC population of Hong Kong full British citizenship in the event of a"
breach of the treaty.
We committed a future British Government to a fundamental obligation when we signed the Joint Declaration, however unpalatable that obligation may be. However successful this Foreign Secretary may be in obtaining the support of other Governments, we shall not fulfil our fundamental obligation to the people of Hong Kong if we do not go further than giving them refugee status.
8.38 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: I agree with a great many of the points made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Like him, I was a member of the Select Committee. Having spent most of May and June preparing the Select Committee report and interviewing witnesses, I was reminded time and again of the extent to which the Joint Declaration of 1984 was a remarkable document. That has been said by many people in the debate. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, because of his many duties, understandably was unable to hear the many glowing tributes to him on the achievement of the Joint Declaration of 1984.
It is a pity that when the Select Committee report was published its reception in the media was largely confined to

1213
the core issue of the right of abode and seemed to miss the vitally important issues that we proposed in measures calculated to increase confidence in Hong Kong, such as the strengthening of the interpretation of the law, the recommendation to speed up the process towards full democracy and the election of the chief executive, the enactment of a Bill of Rights, the aspiration that we could persuade the People's Republic of China not to station troops on the soil of Hong Kong, and our recommendations for the Armageddon scenario. One Sunday paper put our recommendations on that on its front page, but it could have published it the previous week if the media had taken the trouble to read the Select Committee report.
It was inevitable that, given the strong feelings in Hong Kong, most of the media attention was given to the right of abode. Very strong feelings have been expressed about the report and about what the Government have said on the right of abode. We have been heavily criticised in Hong Kong because the Select Committee did not recommend that the right of abode be given to a total of more than 5 million people—as it could well be in 1997. The Select Committee was divided on the issue. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) referred to the fact that the Committee was divided seven to two. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney joined other members of the Committee in voting against giving the right of abode to all those people.
We have been told that that report was dishonourable. Let us consider what would happen if the House of Commons and the Government changed the law to give the right of abode to all current and potential holders of British dependent territory passports. We understand the background to the pleas that that should happen. We have heard the arguments about a sense of security, a fire escape or an insurance policy. We all know the argument, which I guess is true, that if the right of abode is given it would be unlikely to be taken up by large numbers of people. Although that is put to us both here and in Hong Kong, nothing can remove the basic fact that, although few people might take up that right of abode in the forseeable future, they might nevertheless do so in certain circumstances.
That brings me back to the Armageddon scenario, which has been extremely prominent in the debate. There is no question but that in a dire emergency the right of abode would be taken up. We have to ask ourselves what would happen if, in a crisis, huge numbers of Hong Kong people wanted to come here in a hurry. Frankly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, we could not accommodate them in huge numbers. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to say that it is unrealistic to suppose that we could. It is not realistic to envisage 5·5 million people wanting to come here. I do not believe that the transport facilities would allow that, but if we were confronted with even 1 million people, I do not believe that the United Kingdom could absorb them.
Sir Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jopling: I shall not give way as I have only 10 minutes.
My guess is that in a cataclysmic situation after 1997, if our successors in the House of Commons were faced with that massive, unmanageable flow of people into the United
1214
Kingdom—if that unlikely situation should occur—they would be forced to put a stop to it. If we are asked to provide an insurance policy which would be called upon only in a time of extreme crisis, but which, as I have tried to explain, could not possibly be cashed, we have to ask ourselves whether it is not more honourable to say no now, rather than be forced to say no and renege on previous undertakings in the future. I believe that it is more honourable to say no now.
The world community now must concentrate on creating a contingency plan, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested in his evidence to the Select Committee on 14 June when he said that
"it is … inescapable that the United Kingdom with its special responsibility for the territory would be the country to which they would look for treatment as refugees and we would have to try and discharge that responsibility with the help of others."
That is entirely right. The Select Committee supported my right hon. and learned Friend's undertakings on 14 June. Clearly we have a duty to take the lead in preparing a plan with the international community. I do not advise my right hon. and learned Friend to try to extract numbers from countries which he felt might be helpful. If he does, he will not be successful. Most countries which would be helpful in a crisis certainly would not be prepared to commit themselves to certain figures at this stage of negotiations. The failure to get figures would create more despondency and lack of confidence in Hong Kong. It is far better for my right hon. and learned Friend not to start talking numbers but to try to evolve a plan.
It surely must be more satisfactory for Hong Kong to have a worldwide solution of the problems of cataclysm rather than a purely British solution which could not be delivered. We must not forget that if we had given a right of abode, there would be no way in which we could get a plan out of anyone. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will proceed on those lines to try to get general agreement, realising that it is probably not practicable to be specific.
8.48 pm
Mr. Terry Fields: There is an inextricable link between current events in China, historical events and future events. Today's problems need to be addressed against a background of the death, persecution and repression of the Chinese working class, students and peasants, and the worldwide condemnation of the bureaucracy in China. Clearly, words are cheap and action is necessary to support the democratic process in China and give sustenance and support to the people of Hong Kong who view those atrocities with extreme caution.
In the aftermath of the repression of working class students and peasants in China, we have seen the gloating of those anti-working-class elements in British and other societies, who say, "If this is Socialism, with tanks, guns, and flame throwers on the streets, it is little wonder that people are rising against it." We must explain the reasons why those events in China took place, and continue to take place. More important, we must differentiate between the Stalinist regimes of eastern Europe and China, which are labelled Socialist, and the reformist regimes in the West, which are also labelled Socialist. I believe that they are no more Socialist than the British Government, with their

1215
lack of democracy and accountability of officials and elected representatives. We need a political and economic analysis.
I shall go on a journey into the past and look into the position in Russia and China. In 1949, the Chinese picked up the Stalinist model, which had been prevalent for almost 30 years in Russia, and adapted it for their own devices, with all the deformities that occurred under Stalin after the 1920–24 period. Although we applaud the kicking out of capitalism and landlordism in China, we completely condemn the lack of democracy and proper freedom for millions of people in China, just as we condemn it in the Russian states.
I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to accept a Socialist analysis. I certainly do not accept his analysis. The reforms that the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcomed and that, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) welcomed are the direct result of what has happened in the past few weeks and months in China. The reforms have been responsible for raising the expectations of Chinese workers, for the inability of the deformed workers' state to come through with the goods and for the repression that has followed.
Much of the recent economic growth in China was stimulated by the growth of agriculture and industry in the rural sector. Under central planning, huge sectors of heavy industry have been built up. China is now the world's fifth largest industrial producer, but the countryside still exerts enormous pressure on society. At the heart of Deng's new policies was a dramatic shift towards production in the rural areas. This marked a brief break from the overriding emphasis on industrial accumulation, the track followed by the rural bureaucracy in China since the revolution.
We must be honest—there was a recovery between 1977 and 1985 in China. National income per capita grew at an average rate of 16·89 per cent. per year, compared with 3·22 per cent. between 1966 and 1976. However, increasingly expensive inputs of investment, labour, energy and raw materials failed to produce a commensurate increase in manufactured goods, especially of the more modern and technological variety. As more complex technology demands greater skill and more initiative and co-ordination from the work force, so the problem becomes much more acute. In this sense, China's economic experience was mirroring and catching up with what was happening in the Soviet Union. Deng and his cohorts had no confidence in the working class. The conscious involvement of workers in running society—the key to running a planned economy—would threaten the power and privileges and prestige of the ruling class, so workers were not involved in central planning.
The leadership chose the easy option—a turn towards the countryside, with policies aimed at stimulating farm production, rural industry and services. This produced a phenomenal spurt of growth in the economy, but it was only one-sided. Gains in the countryside have already rebounded on the cities. During that period, the leadership bowed to the enormous pressure for change that had fermented in the rural sector. It allowed the rapid dissolution of the collective farms, to be replaced by the household responsibility system, under which households contracted to sell a quota of produce to the state. At the
1216
same time, state prices for produce were raised significantly. Those measures stimulated big, all-round increases in output.
In the second phase, beginning in 1985, the Government went even further. Households were granted 15-year leases on the land, with the right to reassign occupancy. The long-standing state monopoly on the purchase of grain and other major farm products was abolished. Although the state retains the right to buy quotas under contracts, there is largely a free market in agricultural produce.
Encouraged by incentives, there were dramatic increases in output, but there were contradictions. Increased agricultural output was accompanied by a massive growth in- rural industry. "Specialised households" involving 70 million workers provide employment for a section of the redundant rural labour force and account for about 40 per cent. of the rural sector's gross value output.
Until 1986, the new policies appeared to be a great success. Western commentators, gladdened by Deng's turn to capitalist methods and excited by the prospect of China's boundless market, could not praise China enough. But things have turned sour. A glance beneath the surface of the market reforms shows why. According to Deng,
"there are no fundamental contradictions between a socialist system and a market economy."
That comment about Socialism and capitalism being linked has been made a little closer to home. However, markets are essentially unplanned—unlike the planned economies of China and of Russia—attracting resources to the most profitable sectors regardless of the economy's overall needs and undermining the effectiveness of central planning. There is a contradiction between the direction that Deng and his bureaucrats are taking and the basis of a workers' state.
Grain production, for instance, has declined alarmingly after reaching record levels in 1984. The effectiveness of price incentives has been undermined, partly by the increased cost of inputs, partly by more attractive prices for other crops. In some areas, local councils have insufficient cash to pay for the state's quota of grain, so peasants have stopped growing crops. The state has been forced to import increasing quantities of grain, spending $1·5 billion of valuable foreign currency on 16 million tonnes of grain in 1988. There are contradictions in a so-called planned economy venturing into a capitalist system.
Recently, the Government introduced preferential allocations for farmers—in reality, a form of rationing, which contradicts the reliance on market methods. Naturally, farmers in those areas have responded by producing the crops for which they get the highest prices—in tune with a capitalist economy. That has meant the production of more cotton and tobacco and less grain and other foods. Shortages and higher prices have helped to accelerate the general inflationary trend, which is fastest in the cities, where the incomes of workers have not risen as fast as in the countryside. A hotch-potch of contradictory economic and political policies is prevailing in China. The workers reacted to that.
Last year, according to official figures, 35 per cent. of Chinese cities and towns suffered a cut in living standards. Inflation and unemployment rates have risen and, as a consequence, workers have moved into action. In the struggles in China, workers have accompanied students

1217
and peasants and reacted against the reforms that have taken place. The bureaucracy finds itself isolated and incapable of dealing with the problems that affect the people of China.
The Chinese workers' demands were exemplified by students in Tienanmen square. They want democracy. Instead of claims that it is a move to capitalism, we must listen to the brave students who went to their death singing the "Internationale". The events over the next period have already predicted by strong calls in relation to international capitalism, and a similar warning—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time.
Mr. Fields: I will sit down after this sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We warned the Government against short-term expediency. Wider and larger perspectives are necessary. Ultimately, the result of the struggles in China will be mirrored in Hong Kong, Britain and around the world. Workers of the world will unite, and the days of this and reactionary imperialist Governments around the world will be numbered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time limit on the length of speeches is about to lapse. I hope that hon. Members will still make brief speeches and allow as many other hon. Members as possible to participate in the debate.
8.59 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) reminded me of Swinburne's lines
"Even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea."
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the conclusions that he reached.
There is a strange phenomenon in Hong Kong. The richest and smartest people live in flats on the Peak, but for much of the year a cloud settles round that Peak, completely destroying visibility. Perhaps when the House next debates the vexed question of Hong Kong and its relations with China hon. Members will have escaped from the dark cloud that was created by the appalling atrocities in Peking and will see the relationship in an entirely different and, I hope, rather better way.
In recent weeks, I have been astonished by comments in the media. One has had to check one's own moorings. It was as though Hong Kong had been towed 100 miles into the South China sea and had broken all its traditional links with the Chinese mainland. The columnists and critics who often appear on my right have suddenly appeared on my left, in shrill and emotional terms reminding my colleagues and me of our moral obligations to the people of Hong Kong in a way that I found bizarre.
I will give some examples. It is outrageous to suggest that any British Cabinet would say to the people of Hong Kong, "If you run into real trouble, millions of you can seek refuge in the United Kingdom, but we say that only to give you confidence; for heaven's sake, do not ever try to do so." No Cabinet or political party would react in that way, and I cannot believe that any legislation framed from such decisions would get through the House of Commons.
Believe it or not, one or two papers suggested that the well-educated people of Hong Kong might move in their thousands or millions to an island off Scotland, to be
1218
self-contained and to create wealth for themselves and the United Kingdom. It would have to be an Islay or an Alcatraz. We would have to stop them by force from coming to London and other big cities to improve their business opportunities.
A weird letter from some old fool was given prominence in the Spectator last week. It suggested that the Gurkha garrison in Hong Kong should be dramatically increased so that Hong Kong's defences could be made secure. That brought back memories for me. I served as a soldier in Kowloon in the mid-1960s. We endlessly discussed whether after we had mined some passes and blown up some tunnels we could keep the Chinese army out for 12 or 24 hours. At the latest count, the Chinese People's Liberation Army has 2·3 million personnel, and the combined forces of China have roughly 3·2 million. The reality is that Hong Kong is totally indefensible in military terms. In about 12 hours, if they wish, the Chinese could change the sovereignty of the colony. Britain has very few cards to play, and most of them are rather low.
I remember at that time a water shortage in Hong Kong, when the taps were on for only four hours every fourth day. It certainly gave a new importance to aftershave. It also reminded us of how totally dependent the geography and the physical being of Hong Kong is on mainland China because negotiations were then taking place so that we might be allowed a little more water from China's vast reservoirs.
I then moved to Hong Kong island and worked as a member of the Hong Kong Government for 18 months. I paid Hong Kong income tax, which I assure my hon. Friends was most beneficial to me. It was explained to me that Hong Kong would not be like Gibraltar—a permanent colony—and that it would not become independent like Kenya or the other east African colonies but that its future lay in reverting to the Chinese mainland in 1997. That concept was entirely accepted by the people of Hong Kong at that time. Indeed, one reason why they paid so little income tax was that Britain had certain obligations, especially defence obligations, and Hong Kong was on a special route. I remember Reggie Maudling, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, arguing in Government House with the governor, Sir David Trench, for whom I was working, about Hong Kong's financial support for our defence forces. I suspect that that issue still rumbles on in the cloisters of Whitehall. I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary nodding his head.
I was told that the Chinese were after Taiwan above all; that they would put up with a lot in relation to Hong Kong, but that, ultimately, Macao and Hong Kong led to Taiwan. Taiwan is linked with the civil war and has far more significance and historical importance for them.
If I am asked what Britain can do at this stage, I have to say, "Do nothing in particular, but do it well." I take an optimistic view about China. Experts say that every six years since the world war the politics of China have shifted dramatically one way or the other. Therefore, it does not seem far-fetched to expect another shift to occur during the next eight years. China's leadership has gone well beyond the biblical barrier of three score years and ten. It is a leadership despised by its own people and disliked by almost every other country.
In this day and age the rulers in Peking must acknowledge the power of radio and television. The BBC World Service has said that it has an enormous audience

1219
throughout China. That audience understands that elections are taking place in Poland and that in Hungary parties other than the Communist party will be able to stand. Of course, they then wonder why the Chinese people should be permanently kept from the democratic process.
I am optimistic that, between now and 1997, we will have an improved relationship with China. In the meantime, it makes sense to increase democracy in Hong Kong. I should like a Chinese-Hong Kong citizen to be elected as the chief executive, governor, president, or whatever the head of the administration is to be called. I should like HMS Tamar to be set aside for our future consul general, as the Select Committee recommended. However, those are small matters of detail when one realises that we can never really restore the confidence of the Hong Kong people because a silly speech in Peking or a foolish move by the military command can totally obliterate any feeling of well-being that may have been built up.
I encourage my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government to keep going on the path that they have set themselves. The agreement reached in 1984 was an astonishing agreement—a landmark in British diplomacy. If anyone doubts that, he should look at the concessions that the Chinese Government made to the British Government over Hong Kong. If we keep on the path that we have set ourselves and act with courage, I believe that history will show that we took the right course.
9.9 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: I am certainly the only person present who has suffered under British colonial rule, root and branch. I was born in a British colony, so I have much sympathy with the people of Hong Kong.
Serious though the debate has been, there has been much hypocrisy. There have been two sorts of hypocrites: first, those who disgracefully tried to blame the people of Hong Kong for fighting for their rights, such as the right of abode. They said that the Hong Kong people are spending money on advertising and talking about things such as Armageddon. They sought to blame the victims for the situation in which they find themselves. That is completely abhorrent. The other hypocrites have been very sympathetic. They say, "We are so sorry about what has happened, but there is not much that we can do about it. Britain has nothing up its sleeve in terms of negotiation with the People's Republic of China, so we had better sit down and accept it". I reject thoroughly both of those views.
I pay tribute to the high-powered delegation of professionals from Hong Kong, including doctors and lawyers, who are in the Gallery and who have listened to the debate. They must be disappointed at the level of debate.
Some people have said that they oppose the right of abode. I am certainly not of that view. Some people have said that, if there is trouble in China, we can take people in as refugees. But the difference between a refugee and a citizen is immense. If a problem blows up in Hong Kong, perhaps in 1998, people coming here as refugees would be put in a refugee camp with no rights and would be treated in the same way as other refugees all round the world.
1220
They would be lucky if they could get jobs. But a citizen, with the right of abode could come to this country any time and do what he liked. He could work and participate in the National Health Service. He would not have to wait for the British Government to give him refugee status.
It was amazing that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) should say that if the treaty is breached we will make those people British citizens. Is he saying that, in circumstances such as occurred in Tiananmen square, the staff in the British embassy would stay up all night handing out British passports to Hong Kong citizens so that they could come to Britain the next day? That is nonsense. That could never occur. If people try to lead others down that path, that is completely wrong.
Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Grant: No, I do not have much time.
I am also worried about the position of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on the right of abode. I believe that Labour party policy is to repeal the British Nationality Act 1981. The residents of Hong Kong cannot come to Britain because, under that Act, they are deemed to be British overseas citizens. If the Labour party is pledged to repeal that Act, it would therefore repeal that provision, and Hong Kong people could then come to this country and have the right of abode. I hope that, when he winds up, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon valley (Mr. Foulkes) will explain that apparent contradiction in Labour party thinking.
I want to pick up one or two points of the Foreign Secretary. I will not be one of those hon. Members who praised him, because I said in a previous debate:
"The Foreign Secretary's contribution seemed a tiny bit complacent. He is trying to make out that all is well and that everything is under control, but my information is that people are very worried. They feel that there is a crisis of confidence in Hong Kong. There is a general feeling that the Government, having signed the joint declaration in 1984, are now about to wash their hands of Hong Kong."—[Official Report, 15 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 720–21].
I continued in that vein.
Today the Foreign Secretary also said that a Bill of Rights will soon be introduced which will incorporate all the rights and freedoms currently enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. I welcome that, but will there be proper consultation with the people of Hong Kong before it is introduced? What mechanisms will be set in place to ensure that the majority of the people of Hong Kong—I stress "majority"—will be consulted on this issue? Will the rights in that Bill be enforceable by the courts against not only the Executive Council, but the Legislative Council? In other words, will the courts be able to declare null and void any laws that may be passed that violate the rights contained in the Bill of Rights?
The draft Basic Law contains no general right to non-discrimination, to equal opportunity or any rights against sexual or racial discrimination. Will that be remedied in the Bill of Rights that he is proposing?
I support those people who talk about 100 per cent. direct elections to the Legislative Council by 1995. A quarter of the Legislative Council should have been elected in 1988, but that was not done. It is important that 50 per cent. of the members of the Legislative Council are in place by 1991. The Government must also drop their previous insistence that reforms before 1997 must dovetail with the

1221
Basic Law. On the contrary, the Government should insist that the Basic Law provides for the continuation of democracy.
The events are about real people. When we debated this matter on a Friday morning in July last year few hon. Members were present and certainly no right hon. Members, apart from the Foreign Secretary, were present. The position has changed dramatically since then. People's lives are being affected daily. In this debate I have not yet seen the emotion that I saw when I met people outside the Chinese embassy. I have seen no tears in here, but I have seen tears when I have spoken to people in my constituency whose families or friends have been murdered in China. When the House begins to take this issue seriously and when people begin to talk about the problems of real people, the House will achieve some credibility.
I want to give the Home Secretary an opportunity to do something. A Chinese person living here, Mr. David Choi, who is also known as Shu Lai Ming, and who used to work for the New China news agency, has applied for refugee status in Britain. If the British Government are serious in their concern for the people of China and Hong Kong, they should grant him refugee status quickly and they should give him the travel documents that he needs so that he can meet the rest of his friends and colleagues in Paris. That is something concrete that the Home Office could do quickly.
We have not been primarily affected by the problem. We can sit here and say all sorts of nice, plausible things that sound good and read well in the newspapers. I want people to take direct action and I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will do something about the case I have highlighted.
I should have liked to have made several points about the draft Basic Law, the Legislative Council, and the special administrative region, but this is not the time to fine-tune our approach to such matters. This is the time to settle basic issues. One basic issue which I am ashamed has not been settled and is not being supported is the right of abode of the people from Hong Kong who are suffering or who may suffer. I hope that soon the British Government will alter their policy and allow those people into this country.
9.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My feelings about this issue are undoubtedly coloured by my experiences of the past few months. At Easter I went to Peking and Hong Kong and enjoyed a remarkably encouraging and optimistic visit. I met a number of elderly, senior Chinese officials who had been victims of the cultural revolution and who were undoubtedly feeling that exciting and interesting experiments were taking place in China. They looked forward to a major improvement in the Chinese economy.
I came away from those countries and left behind my stepdaughter who, for nine months of this year, has been studying in Peking and has spent a considerable time in Tiananmen square. It became wholly apparent that, whatever eventually happened to that great demonstration, it began as a small group of students who were worried about the future of their education and wanted to speak to somebody senior in the administration. They did not want to change the political system or dramatically
1222
alter the way in which things were done, but simply to receive some assurance about the future of education and make the point that it would be reasonable to allow people to choose their own career, rather than being dictated to class by class by the central bureaucracy. It was the extraordinary failure of anyone to come out of the forbidden city and talk to the students about their problems which gradually caused the enormous change in the demonstration.
My daughter told me that throughout the demonstration people throwing stones were handed over to the police by the students. She said that anyone could walk anywhere in Tiananman square, down carefully kept paths which were remarkably clear, and that everybody was extraordinarily good-natured—far more so than normal—throughout those weeks in Peking. The idea that these people had to be shot down in cold blood or run over by tanks was such an extraordinary failure, both of will and of political skill, that it is not at all surprising that the people of Hong Kong should feel completely destroyed by it. It is a strange, and not, I hope, a significant coincidence that the Joint Declaration should have been signed by Zhao Ziyang. Where is he now?
Temperamentally, I feel very much drawn to the proposition that we should courageously gamble with the suggestion that everyone should be allowed the right of abode. However, it is perfectly clear that that is not a practical proposition, not least because of the long period over which this right would exist, and the extraordinary difficulty of policing the numbers and deciding who should, and who should not, be entitled to it.
There is a serious danger facing Hong Kong. It is not because in 1997 the Chinese Government will walk into Hong Kong with the intention of overriding the existing Government, taking over and going for the people of whom they disapprove, but because some editor, journalist or student exercising the historical freedom of speech to which he or she has become accustomed says something which cuts to the quick the thin-skinned rulers of China and is arrested for something which is not, in any shape or form, an offence under Hong Kong law. Then there will be some sort of riot justifiabily demanding the release of the detainees. At that point, the Chinese Government may well declare that the matter is an internal one concerning only their internal security. They will claim a right to suggest that the treaty has been torn up and they will take over. This is why I was especially glad that my right hon. and learned Friend said that the Hong Kong Government must be part of any decision on whether a state of emergency exists.
Since we are clutching at straws, let us also insist on much greater democracy in Hong Kong. When I was there at Easter, I was told in terms that any planter in a Somerset Maugham story would have recognised that we cannot let the people have real democracy—they would vote for the wrong people, most of them do not want it and would not know how to use it, democracy was terribly destabilising, and China did not like the idea anyway.
In fact, it was made clear to me by a number of other people that Hong Kong is ready for democracy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) rightly pointed out, if there are already embryonic parties, the way to ensure a proper democratic Government in Hong Kong is for all who are not organised in parties to start organising. The enormous growth of pressure groups and voluntary organisations

1223
working effectively to put their point of view to the bureaucracy in recent years clearly shows that Hong Kong is ready for democracy and should certainly be given it soon.
My right hon. and learned Friend and the Government should not under-estimate the generosity of the British. Letters from, and personal meetings with, constituents have shown me that they do not want us to behave dishonourably towards Hong Kong. They want us to decide generously whom to receive. If we go around talking about enormous numbers all the time, we could easily generate the sort of atmosphere in which even the 30 widows whom the Select Committee rightly suggested we should receive would be unwelcome. Alternatively, if we make a generous statement about how many people this country is prepared to receive, that will enormously strengthen our bargaining position with the rest of the world. How can we possibly ask the rest of the world to be generous if we are mean?
9.27 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The only insurance policy on offer is one that Hong Kong people will have to organise for themselves. It needs to be a massively organised operation. It needs advance parties establishing themselves in host countries, viable in themselves and making a contribution to those communities from the start. The operation needs negotiation between the Hong Kong Government and not only national Governments but local, provincial, district and city governments. It needs lines of credit organised by banks accustomed to drawing on international financial markets to finance Chinese business. It needs the establishment of overseas operations outside Hong Kong and China by all the large and many of the small businesses in Hong Kong.
Preparations on this scale entail a migration of skilled professional people considerably in excess of the numbers now moving, as every insurance policy involves the payment of an insurance premium. If every job created by a Hong Kong Chinese for a Hong Kong Chinese leads to the creation of a job for a person in the host community, it will be possible to build up these advance parties and prepare the ground for a much larger-scale migration, if that were called for.
If all went well with the People's Republic, this Chinese diaspora would be of great benefit to Hong Kong and China because of the world-wide links that it would build up. If all did not go well, it would constitute a formidable sanction in the hands of the people of Hong Kong, which would make Hong Kong far less attractive to the PRC if it neglected the rights of the people there. The timetable for democracy to elect the Government that would be needed to carry this out, as set out in the Select Committee report, is too slow. There can be direct elections this year, with three months preparation, for 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council, with 100 per cent. in 1991, with not only the election of the chief executive from the Hong Kong Chinese, but also the appointment of heads of department and every senior officer of the Executive. The people of Hong Kong have only eight years in which to organise this effort. They must get on with it now.
9.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: In May, the official Opposition pressed the Government for a debate on Hong Kong, as we did last year, so that we could discuss the second draft of the Basic Law. If we had had that debate, we would have greatly welcomed the changes from the first draft giving greater autonomy to the Hong Kong special administrative region after 1997, agreed by the People's Republic of China, but we would have called for quicker progress towards greater democracy and we would have pressed a number of issues relating to the protection of civil and human rights within Hong Kong, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said. Sadly, as right hon. and hon. Members have so readily said, the tragic massacre in Tiananmen square and the subsequent purge, repressions and executions that continue today have dramatically changed the nature and the urgency of the issue before us and the world. We are today debating China as much as Hong Kong.
In our relations with China, the United Kingdom has a special responsibility to consider the effect of anything that we say or do on the future of Hong Kong, but the Government, and particularly the Foreign Secretary, have the balance wrong. The Foreign Secretary tends to confuse propriety and obsequiousness and to put commercial concerns higher than morality. The House should not need reminding of the brutal nature of the massacre. The dramatic media coverage brought swift and universal condemnation from all parties here.
We must also remember that our support and encouragement were given to the demonstrators in support of democracy in China. It was reasonable of them to believe that our support was genuine, not fair weather support, and equally reasonable of them to expect that we would stand by them if the going got rough—and it has become really rough. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said a month ago, to acclamation from both sides of the House:
"the memory and meaning of one unarmed young man standing in front of a column of tanks in Peking yesterday will remain with the British people long after the present leadership in China and what they stand for have been forgotten."—[Official Report, 6 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 14.]
That memory and meaning remain with the British people, and they remain with the Opposition. I hope that they also remain with the Government. If they do, the Government will have no hesitation in insisting that the 48 Group trade mission, led by Sir Trevor Holdsworth, president of the Confederation of British Industry, should be cancelled. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will say that unequivocally.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said earlier, and as I said yesterday, the Chinese Government are exploiting all these contacts for propaganda purposes. They put the telegram from the 48 Group saying that it was still coming despite the massacre on the front page of the People's Daily. How can Sir Trevor shake the hand of Li Peng while young students are still being brutally executed with a bullet through the back of the head? We must make it absolutely clear that it cannot be business as usual until the purge, the repression and the executions stop.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that the Government will help Chinese students in Britain and that that help will include extending visas for an open

1225
period, issuing travel documents to those whose passports expire and enabling them to help themselves financially by allowing them to work here. It is to the students here and in other countries that a future, more enlightened leadership of China is, we hope, to be entrusted.
The events in China have sent shock waves through Hong Kong, as my right hon. Friend and I saw when we visited the territory within a week of the massacre. We accept that there is a great need for action to restore confidence, but I must respectfully disagree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) as we do not think that it was adequately met by the tardy and dithering visit of the Foreign Secretary, even though we would not go as far as The Times leader in describing it as inept and pointless.
As the House knows, we are not in disagreement with the Government about the difficulty of agreeing to the request to grant the right of abode in the United Kingdom to almost 6 million people in Hong Kong, as some have suggested, or even the 3·25 million eligible for or holding British dependent territory passports, although we fully recognise the strength of feeling and the sincerity of those in Hong Kong who have argued that case. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—when he was awake—rightly questioned the basis of the claim to the right of abode, or the obligation of this country to provide that right of abode.
In the time available I cannot answer all the points raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). However, in answer to one point I must tell him that when dealing with matters of immigration, right of abode and the granting of refugee status, any consideration of the economic or social usefulness of potential immigrants, such as he suggested, is not only irrelevant but obnoxious. Surely we accept people as a matter of principle and not because they might boost our gross national product or alleviate our skills shortage.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the Opposition, on a matter of principle, opposed the 1981 Act—the consequences of which they now support—is he saying that their opposition was wrong at the time or that their actions now are wrong on the basis of that principle?
Mr. Foulkes: On this issue, as on the issue about which I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he wants to have it both ways. He said that we should take people for the reasons that I have just outlined, and I think that that is wrong.
We criticise the Government for not presenting a clear, powerfully articulated and credible alternative for restoring confidence. Such an alternative comprises three elements. The first is a firm commitment to full democracy on a fixed timetable. The second is a resolute approach to dealing with China, with the reminder that it is in its interests not only to return to civilised behaviour but to keep Hong Kong stable and prosperous. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is in China's interests to say—and even more so to do—things that will help reinforce confidence in Hong Kong. Thirdly, and above all, we believe in the vigorous pursuit of an international safety net, first advocated by the Opposition and now endorsed by the Select Committee.
In every debate on Hong Kong in this House, the Opposition have pressed the case for early and extensive
1226
democracy, but we have had procrastination and excuses galore from the Government. Britain is on very weak ground when criticising the lack of democracy in China or anywhere else while we retain colonial paternalism in Hong Kong. We wanted direct elections in 1988, but tragically—and even laughably in the light of subsequent events—the Government said that the people of Hong Kong were neither ready nor sufficiently sophisticated for that. Now there can be no excuse for delay.
We fully support the formula of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for 50 per cent. direct elections to LegCo in 1991 and 100 per cent. in 1995. We also want some discussion on the possibility of electing in 1995. on the basis of universal suffrage, a Hong Kong Chinese resident with the appropriate age and residential qualifications as governor and chief executive designate—notwithstanding the uncertainty and equivocation of the right hon. Member for Yeovil on the subject. The Government might say that that will need the agreement of the Chinese Government, but unless we take a stand and argue our case forcefully we shall continue to be perceived as kowtowing to the People's Republic of China on this and on other issues.
We accept that the views of the people of Hong Kong should be the main determinant of the nature and speed of introduction of democracy, but when there is no directly elected legislature to consult it is difficult to know how to determine what the views of the people of Hong Kong are. The assessment office device, which was used previously, was seriously flawed, as we have said in previous debates. If the Government do not accept, as the Opposition do, that the position is already clear from the current clamour for more and speedier democracy, surely a referendum on the options could and should be considered.
Of even greater urgency is an alternative to the right of abode. We have argued strongly that an international safety net is needed. That would not only be more credible because, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, a group of countries could accommodate the numbers involved with less difficulty, but it acknowledges that many people in Hong Kong, if they really have to leave—we know that they do not want to—would prefer to join established Hong Kong Chinese communities in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and other Pacific rim countries.
If that is to be credible as an alternative, it needs to be pursued with some urgency and, if reports in the press are correct, they do not suggest that the Government are responding quickly and urgently to the pressure from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Opposition. The Foreign Secretary referred to that slightly more positively today, but a sense of urgency was still lacking. The Foreign Secretary's only response—the offer of passports to the elite—is the one which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, is most likely to cause division and dissent within Hong Kong. We urge him to think again about that before making the statement that he promised.
On a more positive note, we welcome the commitment to introduce a Bill of Rights, but a number of questions on that are still outstanding—most notably those relating to its form and timetable. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer those questions, if not tonight, as quickly as possible. We also welcome the commitment to raise with the Government of China article 14 of the Basic Law on the stationing of troops of the PLA in the Hong Kong

1227
SAR after 1997—with the firm intention, I trust, of altering it. However, none of that is yet enough, especially combined with the Foreign Secretary's muffled message technique to restore the flagging confidence to which the huge queues outside the Singapore office testify. It needs a strong commitment and urgent action on the three areas that I have outlined.
It would be wrong to have a debate on Hong Kong and China without dealing with the plight of the Vietnamese boat people. No one who, like my right hon. Friend and I just a few weeks ago, has seen those bright eager eyes behind the wire netting of the closed camps pleading not to be sent back to Vietnam could ever forget them. We endorse the British Refugee Council's deep concern that forced repatriation would mean them returning to re-education camps and ill-treatment.
The British Refugee Council rightly asked that we should encourage voluntary return, seek detailed promises from the Government of Vietnam on their care, get the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees further involved and develop improved aid and other links with Vietnam. Economic development there will encourage others to stay and those who have left to return. It is also imperative that the Chinese stop assisting the continued flow of refugees and that Britain takes a lead to ensure that all those who were in Hong Kong before June 1988 are resettled, as agreed in Geneva. That applies also to genuine asylum seekers beyond that date.
It would be wrong not to consider the other end of China, and acknowledge with some remorse that the events in Peking have vindicated those who said that we accepted the Chinese Government's version of events in Lhasa too readily, and that the West's timid stand on Tibet may have contributed to the Peking tragedy. We should question why we are more ready to forgive China's transgressions than those of other countries, and whether it is right to give trade and investment priority over human rights and morality. Of course we want to see our relationship with China return to normal, and of course we recognise the vital importance of that to Hong Kong—and we must at some time resume talks on the Basic Law—and of course we desperately hope that China will return to the path of increased openness, but we cannot and should not resume normal relations until the killing and repression have stopped. I am sure that eventually there will be the necessary rapprochement, but we should never forget those who sacrificed their lives for democracy.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): We have had a full and serious debate. At times it has been impassioned, and rightly so. There have been many notable and memorable contributions. The House has yet again exhibited its unanimity of concern for Hong Kong—a unanimity of concern that transcends party boundaries, which was demonstrated in the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The speeches have, as usual, reflected right hon. and hon. Members' detailed knowledge of Hong Kong, its problems, challenges and successes. I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions asked by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House in the time that I have available.
1228
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about the proposed mission to China by the 48 Group of traders. I assure the Opposition that the Department of Trade and Industry is in consultation with the 48 Group, and the question of the Government's financial support is being reviewed in the context of those consultations. I understand that the 48 Group itself has been reconsidering its plans.
This evening the House has accepted that the fundamentals of the Government's policy on Hong Kong remain the right ones—right because they offer the best chance for the people of Hong Kong to sustain their way of life after 1997. That is what the people of Hong Kong want—and it is what Britain, the Government and this House want for them. It is also what China is pledged to accept without conditions—and to continue to accept as its own economic and political system evolves in the years up to and beyond 1997.
Tragic recent events in China mean that Hong Kong, understandably, looks to this House for reassurance. Many right hon. and hon. Members stressed the importance and extreme difficulty of rebuilding confidence in the territory. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley seems to think that it is simply a matter of discovering three magic wands, and of waving them, to make the problems go away. I do not pretend to believe that we can lay to rest all of Hong Kong's fears. The events of 3 and 4 June were too awful and too recent to allow us to say to the people of Hong Kong, "Don't worry." We would not presume to do that. However, we are working to give Hong Kong the reassurances that it needs—the reassurance of a Bill of Rights, of more changes to the Basic Law, and of more rapid progress towards representative government. We hope that, by doing so, we shall help to restore confidence in Hong Kong.
However, China—as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends said—also must play its part in restoring confidence in Hong Kong. China must demonstrate and re-emphasise its commitment to non-interference in Hong Kong—a commitment that it has already made.
I understand the feelings of many hon. Members that in these difficult circumstances it is right for us to give democracy to Hong Kong as quickly as possible. That is why we are carefully considering the pace and nature of democratisation. When we take these critical decisions, it is important that they are the right ones. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, a consensus is absolutely essential. It would be wrong to rush in and make snap decisions before opinion in Hong Kong has crystallised and to seek to impose our solution in this most delicate area.
Clearly, there has been a shift of opinion in Hong Kong. Even before the events of 3 and 4 June, OMELCO had called for a faster pace of democratisation. We need to see whether that remains its view. It is already clear that plans for elections in 1991 will have to be reconsidered. We shall pay careful attention to that. Ever since the 1984 declaration, we have aimed to achieve continuity up to and beyond 1997. The Hong Kong people understand and share that objective. It must be right for us to seek to ensure that the democratic system that we establish before 1997 should continue after the transfer of sovereignty to the People's Republic. Therefore, it is critical that the provisions in the Basic Law reflect the wishes of the Hong Kong people and carry forward the changes that we plan to make before 1997.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he accept that even the leading Chinese negotiator on the draft Basic Law has said that he will look carefully at all its aspects? Should the Government not therefore push as hard as possible to ensure that the Chinese are prepared to accept a faster pace towards democracy?
Mr. Eggar: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. Naturally, we shall pay the closest attention to opinion in Hong Kong. Once it has crystallised, we shall press within the framework of the Basic Law for the correct outcome and marry the Basic Law with that opinion.
Dr. Bray: Will the Minister confirm that, until 1997, the constitution and administration of Hong Kong are the responsibility of the British Government? It will then be for China to adapt to the circumstances when it takes over in 1997.
Mr. Eggar: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. I wish to make it clear that we want to understand exactly how the people of Hong Kong feel on this critical issue. Once that view has crystallised, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall fight hard for their interests within the Basic Law.
Many hon. Members have commented on the right of abode. As my right hon. and learned Friend has made clear, there is simply no way that the British Government could grant several million people the right to come and live in Britain. Such a massive immigration commitment is equivalent to about 6 per cent. of our population. It would be wholly impractical; the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs agreed with that in its recent report.
It is more than impractical—it is wrong—to hold out the promise of an insurance policy in the knowledge that a future British Government could not possibly deliver. To do so would he a cruel deception. That having been said, however, the Government are looking as a matter of urgency at what can be done to meet the concerns of the people of Hong Kong, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary explained in his opening speech.
The scheme that we envisage will not apply solely to the rich and powerful, but will take account of factors such as the value of service to Hong Kong. Our aim is to encourage people from both the public and the private sectors whose skills are essential to Hong Kong's continued success to remain in Hong Kong, thus benefiting it between now and 1997.
Hon. Members have rightly emphasised the importance of the international dimension in seeking to give secure assurances for all the people of Hong Kong. It is clear that it would simply not be a practical possibility for Britain to provide such assurances alone. That is why we shall look for support to our friends and partners, who can help to reinforce confidence now by acknowledging that, if the worst comes to the worst, they have a responsibility to help. We have already begun discussions with our partners in Europe, the United States and the Commonwealth, and we intend to continue them vigorously at the Paris summit, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings and at subsequent international meetings.
For us, Hong Kong's future is a top priority. Many hon. Members have commented on recent events and on the repression in China. About a week ago, we took the opportunity to raise China's human rights record at a
1230
meeting of the United Nations economic and social council, and we shall be working unremittingly to ensure that China's leaders understand fully how much world opinion condemns their appalling actions. They should also realise that continued repression will inhibit the progress of economic reform to which they say that they are committed, and which is so important to the future of their country.
We do not intend to isolate China. I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House who have urged me to do so that my right hon. and learned Friend will take whatever opportunities occur to meet his opposite lumber in China to put across the specific anxieties expressed today.
Today's debate is being followed closely in Hong Kong. The people are anxious for reassurance. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend went to Hong Kong: to hear the territory's concerns at first hand and to make it clear that Britain has not wavered, and will not waver, in her commitment to the people of Hong Kong. We are honest and honourable enough to acknowledge that there are assurances that we cannot provide, and limits to what we can do. That is inevitable: it follows from the Joint Declaration and from Hong Kong's historical and geographical position. As the House recognises, we are not free agents in the matter of Hong Kong's destiny, any more than are the people of Hong Kong themselves. That may be a painful reality, but it is a reality nevertheless, and we in the House and the people of Hong Kong must accept it.
The Government are not about to cut loose from Hong Kong. We are not going to leave its people to an uncertain future. As a physical manifestation of that continued commitment, we are already planning for a large and prominent consulate-general, as was requested by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Britain will be fully engaged at every stage in the establishment of an arrangement that will ensure the continuity of Hong Kong's way of life after 1997, a way of life that has provided the basis for a remarkable success story—
Mr. James Wallace rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 0.

Division No. 298]

[10 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Livsey, Richard

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Maclennan, Robert

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Madden, Max

Canavan, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Sillars, Jim

Fearn, Ronald

Steel, Rt Hon David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Howells, Geraint

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Johnston, Sir Russell

Mr. James Wallace and

Kennedy, Charles

Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Lamond, James

NOES

Nil

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Tony Durant and

Mr. John M. Taylor.

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative.
It being after Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1989, which was laid before the House on 26th June, be approved.
  DEFENCE
  That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before the House on 19th June, be approved.

  ROAD TRAFFIC
  That the draft Recovery Vehicles (Number of Vehicles Recovered) Order (Northern Ireland) 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
  That the draft Recovery Vehicles (Number of Vehicles Recovered) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

Remploy Factory (Rutherglen)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10.11 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The purpose of the debate is to highlight the decision by Remploy to close its Rutherglen factory on safety grounds and relocate its 83 disabled workers at its Clydebank factory. The Rutherglen factory draws its work force from Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Castlemilk and south-east Glasgow, with a large proportion from East Kilbride. The catchment area is therefore very wide. If the factory were closed, there would be no employment opportunities for disabled people within that large area. All those places are further away from Clydebank than the present site and any workers who transferred would be faced with an additional 10 miles of travel, on top of the difficulties that they already face getting to the Rutherglen site. All credit is due to that work force, which makes tremendous efforts to get to work. Another 10 miles of travel would be the last straw for many of them.
The work force estimates that as many as 30 disabled workers would definitely not be able to undergo that extra travel. The local newspaper, the Rutherglen Reformer, has highlighted just one case where the proposed move would mean that the disabled person would have to give up his job. With upwards of 30 disabled people effectively being made redundant, so much for the boast of Mr. Trevor Owen, the managing director of Remploy, in a presentation made to the all-party disablement group in 1986:
"We have never made a disabled person redundant."
The Remploy press release on the Rutherglen factory said:
"In order to protect the jobs of the disabled workers at Rutherglen, the Board of Remploy has approved a substantial capital investment programme which will improve still further the employment facilities at the Clydebank Factory."
That is arrant nonsense. Employment opportunities for disabled people are governed by the proximity of the factory and the workers concerned. Progressively fewer people from the present catchment area would be employed at Clydebank, leaving the area devoid of such opportunities.
At a meeting, I was told by a Remploy representative that every effort was made to find other sites in Rutherglen and Cambuslang. When I asked, in writing, for the details, none was forthcoming. Subsequently, a senior Remploy representative told a meeting of the work force that no attempts had been made to find an alternative site, that none would be made and that, even if Remploy were offered a free factory, it would be rejected. The decision was made to reduce operating costs and economics demanded that the move takes place.
Questions must be asked about the direction that Remploy has taken, especially over the past five years. Why does the company seem to have lost its way from the original philosophy of providing employment opportunities for disabled people in the locality? It is not good enough to say, as I understand that Remploy representatives have said, that other areas have no such provision. The answer is surely to level up, not down.

1233
Questions must also be asked about Government policy which has been implemented by the Government's appointees to the management and board of Remploy. The National Audit Office report of 1986–87 states:
"In November 1983, Remploy were asked to produce a business plan for the 4-year period 1984–85 to 1987–88 with a target of reducing government subvention so that by 1986–87 it would not exceed the employment costs of the disabled workforce. Remploy's four year business plan submitted in March 1984 showed that the bulk of the trading deficit (about £4 million out of £5 million) was accounted for by 20 of its 94 factories and that it aimed to meet its financial objective by increasing its profitable business but without closing any workshops or making workers redundant. Remploy's plan in fact provided for an increase in the number of disabled employees to 9,460 by 1987–88, but at an additional cost to DE of £6·1 million (though this was dependent on inflation factors and wage increase assumptions allowed for in the plan) in the three years 1985–86 to 1987–88.
In the rolled-forward plan covering 1986–87 to 1988–89. Remploy revised the performance predictions for 1986–87 and 1987–88, which had been put forward in the previous plan approved by DE, and requested additional funds above the Public Expenditure Survey provision for 1987–88 and 1988–89. DE did not approve additional funds and Remploy reduced the planned increase in staffing levels from 9,460 to 9,000 as a result. Although, therefore, DE/MSC do not seek to establish any direct control over the numbers employed by Remploy and in general Remploy management are left free to run their business as they think tit, DE's control of funding influences the numbers of disabled sheltered employment places available with Remploy."
So much for Government protestations that Remploy is free to make its own decisions. That freedom is clearly restrained by Government financial decisions. The Government are responsible for putting a financial squeeze on Remploy, which is forcing the company to depart from its traditional role of providing employment for disabled people in various localities. A parliamentary answer from the Department of Employment shows quite clearly that the proportion of the cost of employing people with disabilities at Remploy was 100 per cent. in 1984–85, 100 per cent. in 1985–86, 94 per cent. in 1986–87, 87 per cent. in 1987–88, and 90 per cent. in 1988–89, and the remainder was provided by the company from its trading surplus.
The public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 607, of January 1989, states:
"The aim is to provide sheltered employment in the most suitable and cost-effective way. During 1987–88 Remploy increased its turnover by £13 million to £91 million. The previous year's deficit of £0·2 million moved to a trading surplus of £1·9 million. The company's business plan for 1988–89 aims for a surplus of £2·8 million."
Remploy's report to employees of June 1989 contains a statement by Tony Withey, the chief executive:
"But we increased our sales by £9 million to £99·7 million and we increased the amount we paid towards our disabled wages—our `contribution'—from £7·5 million to over £8·5 million."
A table in the annual report clearly shows that, from 1986 onwards, the Government's financial contribution to employing disabled workers has progressively fallen. I should not have thought that, in 1989, a case would have to be made for totally different criteria to be applied in the Remploy operation. Although in one year Remploy's excess of income over expenditure was £55 million, the estimate of net costs, after flow-back and savings to the Exchequer—I know that the Minister will understand the word "flow-back"—was just under £7·5 million. That is a relatively cheap cost for employing nearly 9,000 disabled people. Such costs have always been accepted as society's
1234
contribution to a vulnerable section of our society. I am confident that there is public support for paying those costs. In any case, the Rutherglen factory is profit-making.
The company seems to be using the excuse of the factory being declared unsafe to rationalise its costs to cope with Government restrictions. That is a dereliction of Remploy's duty as enshrined in the original Act of Parliament. The company was never intended to be treated as a wholly commercial enterprise, but it now seems that only commercial criteria are to be used.
As I understand it from the work force, Remploy has sold the factory in Rutherglen for £130,000. That means that the company is taking that money out of the Rutherglen area and it has had the nerve to tell me and local people that that will be for the good of the Rutherglen area work force. The company must know that many of those disabled people will he unable to travel further than they do at the moment.
Remploy has stated that a new factory would cost £0·75 million, but, as I have already said, the company has contributed a further £1 million from its trading surplus to the cost of employing its disabled workers. As I have shown, the effect of that is only to reduce the Government's share of those costs. I imagine that it is within the power of the Department of Employment to suggest to Remploy that a new factory should be built using that surplus. The Government would then meet the shortfall as they have in previous years.
In 1987–88 Remploy made a trading surplus for the first time. Therefore, let us be clear that Remploy could use its surplus to build a new factory or to reduce Government costs. Surely, for what is involved, it is not beyond the Government to suggest to Remploy that that £1 million would be better used to help the disabled than lying in the Government's bank account. In addition, the £130,000 from the sale of the factory could serve as a useful base for the £0·75 million cost of the factory.
That would enable the continued provision of employment opportunities for disabled people from a large catchment area. At the very least, it would mean that 30 people would avoid losing their jobs. It would also avoid long additional travel for the disabled people who might be forced to go to Clydebank. On the positive side, Remploy would retain a cohesive work force which has shown that it is profitable within the Rutherglen factory environment.
A trade union official has informed me that the Scottish Development Agency has made available to Remploy a factory of 10,000 sq ft at an annual rent of £22,000—in the Cambuslang investment park area. Although 10,000 sq ft was the wrong size, the rent is an indication of what can be made available from the Scottish Development Agency. I am sure that it will be able to come up with a suitable alternative site.
I appeal to Remploy and to the Government to find a new factory in the Rutherglen-Cambuslang area for those disabled pople, who have a hard enough life without losing a job which not only provides income but also proves that they can have independence. Their job means so much to them. I cannot believe that it is the deliberate intention of Remploy or the Government to cause so much hardship.
However, I have to accept that we live in a cynical world and that this could be a conscious decision by Remploy, backed by the Government. If that is the case and the factory is closed, as the local constituency Member of Parliament, I will neither forgive nor forget. I give the

1235
promise that, on the return of a Labour Government at the next general election, I will pursue with that Government the question of exactly what happens at the Rutherglen factory, who made the decisions and on what basis. Depending on the answers, I will then campaign for the appointment to the Remploy board and management of people who will operate the company on the original principles and philosophy of helping disabled people, not throwing them on the scrap heap.
The Minister can act. I call on him to do so and I advise him that he will be judged by his actions.
10.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on his good fortune in securing an Adjournment debate on this important matter, which is understandably causing considerable concern in his constituency.
People with severe disabilities have a real contribution to make to the economic life of this country and for over 40 years Remploy has been playing a major role in making that possible. For people with severe disabilities, the chance of employment—whether in a Remploy factory, on a sheltered placement or in some other form of provision—means independence, self-esteem and social contact, and it represents an important step towards integration into the life of the community. For many it means the chance, perhaps for the first time, to be appreciated and rewarded for their abilities rather than judged on their disabilities.
The creation of Remploy under the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944 stemmed from the belief that disabled people—even those with severe disabilitie—could, given the right support and opportunity, make a worth while contribution to the wealth of the nation.
Since it opened its first factory at Bridgend, south Wales, in April 1946, the company has expanded its commercial operations throughout Great Britain. In each of its 94 factories it seeks to provide employment in a normal commercial environment for people with severe disabilities of all ages and covering the widest possible range of disabilities. It is involved in many different businesses and trades, working to the highest standards for many of Britain's leading companies in such diverse areas as wood and metal furniture, surgical aids and appliances, clothing for leading high street store groups and other purchasers of quality goods, food processing, horticulture and an impressive range of packaging and assembly work. The company has always sought to adopt a flexible approach to the employment of people with disabilities, which has in recent times taken it into new manufacturing and service areas.
Since its formation in 1946, Remploy has steadily increased the number of jobs that it provides for disabled people, with the considerable financial support which my Department has made available. From a total of around 6,000 in the mid-1950s, the company is now providing jobs for around 9,000 people with severe disabilities. In addition, it also employs some 2,000 able-bodied workers.
In plans agreed with my Department, Remploy has, through sound commercial practice in recent years, increased its sales from £62·7 million in 1984–85 to £99·7 million last year—a 59 per cent. sales growth. As a result,
1236
the level of Government subsidy, expressed as a proportion of the company's disabled employment costs, has fallen, as the hon. Gentleman said, from 109 per cent. in 1984–85 to 93 per cent. in 1988–89. That is a considerable and commendable achievement, and the more so for being undertaken in quite difficult trading conditions.
Of the Government's total spending of £92·3 million on the sheltered employment programme in 1988–89, the contribution for Remploy amounted to £62·7 million. The programme itself is currently supporting jobs for some 19,500 people with severe disabilities, and is set to expand further this year with the continued growth in sheltered placements.
The substantial growth in sales to which I have referred has not been achieved by good management alone. Equally important has been the efforts made by the disabled labour force to help bring that about.
I am very happy to have this opportunity to congratulate all employees at Remploy on their efforts in recent years and to pay tribute to the flexibility and adaptability that they have shown.
Remploy is the major provider of jobs within the sheltered employment programme and operates as any other commercial undertaking in a fiercely competitive environment. It has a board of directors, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, with substantial commercial and industrial experience to manage its day-to-day affairs in a normal commercial way. However, in addition to its normal commercial responsibilities, the board has to ensure that its decision-making takes proper account of the best interests of the company's disabled work force.
To ensure that it can make the fullest contribution to providing employment for people with severe disabilities, it is important that the company should also continually seek to improve productive efficiency in its factory network and to find opportunities to reduce its costs. Its success in the application of its commercial skills in this and other ways is important to the employment prospects of its disabled work force as a whole. While the company continues to receive substantial financial support from Government in recognition of the fact that the output of the people with severe disabilities whom it employs is limited by their disabilities—it is right that that support should continue—the financial resource is not without limit. The company must at all times, therefore, use its commercial judgment in making decisions affecting its factory network.
The present network of 94 Remploy factories reflects essentially the needs and priorities of the past 40 years rather than the demands of the late 1980s. That is also true of the geographical spread of sheltered workshops run by local authorities and voluntary bodies. What we have overall is an unevenness in the distribution of employment provision for people with severe disabilities. Some areas have little or no provision; others have concentrations—often of competing provision of similar kinds. In taking decisions today affecting individual factories, Remploy has to take account of its inheritance of a framework of 94 factories and that will, of necessity, affect its freedom of action.
In a wider context, the distribution of sheltered employment provision is an issue which my Department has been addressing. Primarily through the creation of more cost-effective and socially progressive sheltered placements, we are seeking to produce a more equitable

1237
geographical distribution of resource, although this will take some time to achieve. The sheltered placement scheme, which allows people with severe disabilities to work alongside able-bodied colleagues in a wide variety of jobs and locations, has widened the employment choices for this client group and is currently supporting more than 5,000 jobs throughout the country.
As we look closely at what our sheltered employment programme has offered over the years, and can offer in the future, we need to draw on the best to provide the most appropriate support for as many individuals as possible within the resources that can be made available for all those with disabilities—whether severe or not—who require some assistance in finding and retaining employment. I know that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely and primarily concerned about developments in his constituency, but I hope that he will find these more general observations on the sheltered employment programme and the role played in it by Remploy helpful in putting into context the action that the company is planning to take in respect of its factory at Rutherglen, which is the subject of this debate.
I am sure that there is no dispute over the fact that it is necessary to close the Rutherglen factory on its present site because of the severe structural faults that have been evident for some time. I know that the company has considered fully all options available to it, including the possibility of building a replacement factory at Rutherglen, but on a different site.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether he can see the surveyor's report on the Rutherglen factory and other papers prepared for the Remploy board. As I have explained, Remploy operates as a normal commercial undertaking in its business operations, and the material that he has requested is regarded as commercial in confidence. It is for that reason that I cannot agree to ask the company to release the documents that he has requested. I am satisfied, however, that the company has acted properly in this matter in informing the work force of its decision and in seeking to do everything possible to protect the jobs of the disabled work force.
Clydebank is a modern Remploy factory, also in the textile sewing division, and it is large enough to accommodate the combined work force. The decision to transfer the disabled work force from Rutherglen to Clydebank will result in the better use of resources, increased efficiency and reduced costs and is, in the judgment of the Remploy board, the best way of protecting the jobs of the 83 people with severe disabilities currently employed there. To safeguard the jobs of those workers, the board has approved a capital investment programme to improve still further the facilities at the Clydebank factory. These are questions on which it is entirely proper for the board to reach decisions in the light of the information available to it. I am satisfied that the company has taken its decision with the longer-term interests of its disabled employees at Rutherglen uppermost in mind and with due regard to the commercial realities.
Nevertheless, I can well understand that those workers in Rutherglen who will need to travel the extra eight miles or so to the Clydebank factory each day would prefer a solution that did not involve this additional journey. For some of the physically disabled in particular, I appreciate that this may be more inconvenient and I regret very much any additional difficulties that this may pose. I have been
1238
very glad to hear, therefore, that the company will be doing everything possible to minimise the difficulties. Remploy has a good reputation for caring and its area personnel manager is in the process of seeing every employee individually to resolve any personal problems.
It is not always possible, of course, for employees to have their place of work right on their doorstep, and I understand from Remploy that on average the workers at their 94 factories throughout the country tend to travel some three to five miles to work, with some travelling as much as 10 miles. I acknowledge, however, that that will be of little consolation to those Rutherglen workers who will be faced with a longer and more difficult journey to work than perhaps they currently have.
I am pleased to hear that the company will provide special transport to Clydebank for those who need it, and will fully reimburse any additional travel costs incurred by disabled employees. If any employees in Rutherglen find it more convenient to move to one of the other nearby Remploy factories rather than Clydebank, the company will be prepared to consider this. By dealing with problems on an individual basis in this way, the company hopes to minimise the inconvenience to its disabled work force.
This is not, of course, the first occasion when Remploy has merged adjacent factories. Last year the company successfully merged three factories in Wales into a new factory to provide a more modern environment with improved working conditions. The majority of the workers involved came from a factory some nine miles from the new factory, and the company was able to carry out the merger without making any of the 75 severely disabled workers concerned redundant.
The company is seeking to take all necessary steps to safeguard the jobs of the disabled work force at Rutherglen and so provide continuity of employment for them.
I am sure that the hon. Member is also concerned about the future employment prospects of the 16 fit employees working at Rutherglen alongside their disabled colleagues. I hope that they, too, are successful in finding suitable alternative employment as soon as possible. The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate why the company must direct its efforts primarily to safeguarding the employment of those workers at Rutherglen with severe disabilities. The local staff from my Department will, of course, be pleased to assist the displaced workers in every way possible with any future employment or training needs that they might have.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter and for giving me the opportunity of setting out the background. Naturally I share his concern about any inconvenience which the proposals will cause. I hope, however, that he will be reassured by the caring and responsible way in which Remploy is dealing with the effects that the change will have on the individual disabled workers at Rutherglen, as it seeks to protect their continuity of employment. I hope that I have made it clear that the board reached its decision on the basis of the commercial and technical information available to it and in a way that is consistent with its responsibilities to ensure that it can support the maximum number of jobs for people with severe disabilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Selective Investment Brokers Ltd.
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what negotiations or discussions his Department had with third parties about the affairs of Selective Investment Brokers Ltd., between January 1985 and June 1986.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 5 July 1989]: None. The company was mentioned in the context of investigations into Wessex Trust conducted by the Wiltshire police at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the course of which assistance was provided by my Department.

  Industrial Location
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what action he has taken to persuade European companies to locate in the United Kingdom in the light of the opening of the Channel tunnel and the advent of the single market in 1992;

  (2) what advice he has given to European companies on the advantages of the Channel tunnel in attracting investment in the United Kingdom from Europe.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: The DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau organises a number of commercially sponsored seminars in Europe each year aimed at attracting investment into the United Kingdom generally and highlighting the benefits of the assisted areas.

  In promoting the United Kingdom as the "Preferred Location" it draws on a wide range of selling points which include its competitive wage rates, low social on-costs, low corporate taxation, skilled work force, membership of the Community, the impending completion of the single European market, the already good connections to the mainland, particularly from the east coast ports and the enhanced physical communications that will be brought about by the completion of the Channel tunnel.

  Opium Derivatives
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of opium derivatives is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 April 1989, c. 254–260]: As recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, we shall work towards the creation of a single EC market in opium derivatives. We envisage the development of reciprocal arrangements among EC countries for both promoting and supervising trade between them in these and other narcotic drugs, taking account of production within the Community and imports from elsewhere.

  Shipyards
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement outlining the powers of the European Economic Commission in relation to investment proposals for shipyards, with particular reference to proposals to re-open shipyards.

  Mr. Newton
  If shipbuilding were to resume at North East Shipbuilders Ltd. without their agreement, the Commission would be in a position to take infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom under article 85 of the treaty of Rome. The Commission could also open a procedure under article 93(2) of the treaty of Rome into all matters notified last December. As a result of such a procedure the Commission could require state aid that they decided was outwith the terms of the sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding to be repaid.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning companies seeking to re-open shipyards owned by British Shipbuilders without intervention assistance, being required to submit proposals.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement today.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has consulted the European Economic Community Commission on proposals ro reopen shipyards when the purchasers were not seeking any intervention assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  In December 1988 the Government notified their intention to close North East Shipbuilders Limited as part of a package covering all aspects of support for the corporation under the sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding with the exception of the terms for the disposal of Govan which had already been cleared. The Commission took the closure into account in deciding not to raise objection to the extensive assistance that British Shipbuilders had required and to the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with this. Any proposal for a return to shipbuilding at North East Shipbuilders Limited would give the Commission grounds for re-opening all the matters cleared last December. In these circumstances we could only proceed sensibly on the basis of consulting the Commission about possible proposals.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Plain English
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether there has been any progress made in efforts in the Civil Service to produce documents in plain English and to reduce redundancy of forms and their contents.

  Mr. Luce
  Since the Government's forms initiative began in 1982, Departments have made good progress in producing forms and leaflets which are easier to understand and simpler to complete. A review of the forms that the Government send to business has recently been carried out by my office. This makes recommendations to reduce the numbers of forms sent out, and to make those
  577
  that remain clearer and easier to complete. Copies of the review report have been placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made on achieving equality of opportunity within the Civil Service for women and those from the ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Luce
  We are making good progress in this area. My Department will, next week, publish a report on progress achieved in implementing the programme of action to increase equality of opportunity for women in the Civil Service. This shows that opportunities for combining a family and a career are improving, and that we are seeing more women in middle and top management jobs. As I told the House on 22 May, a similar programme of action to increase equality of opportunity for ethnic minority staff and applicants is currently being drawn up in consultation with departments.

  Agency Status
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many branches of the Civil Service now have agency status; and in which Departments.

  Mr. Richard Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: A total of eight Government activities have been set up as executive agencies. These are:

  Agency

  Department

  Vehicle inspectorate

  Department of Transport

  Companies House

  Department of Trade and Industry

  HMSO

  National weights and measures laboratory

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Warren Spring laboratory

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Resettlement agency

  Department of Social Security

  Civil Service College

  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  QEII conference centre

  Property Services Agency

  I shall be making a full progress report to the House shortly.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Bank of England (Privatisation)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to privatise the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government have no plans to privatise the Bank of England.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether changes are planned in the occupational pension arrangements for part-time staff working in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Brooke
  New, more flexible pension arrangements for part-time staff, most of whom are women, are to be introduced from 1 January 1990. They will provide greater opportunity for part-time staff to earn pension benefits. The new arrangements complement the alternative working patterns initiative, and will help the Civil Service to tap into sources of skilled and experienced staff who may hitherto have been deterred by the traditional working pattern. The changes will also enable useful simplification of administrative procedures to be made.

  Civil Servants (Transfers)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the arrangements for making advances of salary available to civil servants who have to move their homes as a result of being transferred in the public interest to a new place of work.

  Mr. Brooke
  A civil servant who has to move home on transfer in the public interest to a new place of work may be eligible for an advance of salary. Under the current arrangements an advance may be made if the net proceeds of the sale of the existing property, if any, and the maximum mortgage available from commercial sources are not sufficient to cover the cost of a suitable property at the new station. The current maximum advance payable within upper and lower limits is six months' pay. The limits were last revised in 1981. The upper limit is £9,500 with a further £1,000 for transfers into London.

  The arrangements have recently been reviewed in the light of changes in the property market and in salaries since 1981. The intention is to allow departments more flexibility in making advances on transfer. It will no longer be an essential requirement, for example, that the individual should first obtain the maximum commercial mortgage. It is also proposed that the maximum advance should be six months' pay, as previously, but that the limits expressed in cash terms should be abolished.

  Rationalisation Schemes
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations have been made by the inter-departmental committee set up to consider whether Departments should enjoy a share of benefits accruing from rationalisation schemes and disposals of property declared surplus.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  At present, receipts from the disposal of Government civil property are in general accounted for by the PSA and accrue to the Exchequer. From 1 April 1990, responsibility for the existing civil estate will be divided between individual Departments and the PSA, as announced in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 May 1988, Official Report, column 339. From that date, individual Departments will account for receipts in respect of disposals from their departmental estates and will seek permission from the Treasury to reapply all or part of proceeds to other parts of their programme offering good

  579
  value for money. The same arrangements apply to the PSA which will have responsibility for the common user element of the civil estate and could involve assistance to Departments that have had to move in order to create worthwhile rationalisation opportunities. This issue is among the matters kept under review by the official level interdepartmental committee which deals with accommodation matters generally on the Government's civil estate.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Squad
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what reasons have been given to the serious fraud squad by the Egyptian authorities for their refusal to provide papers relating to Mr. Fayed; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Investigations into allegations that criminal offences have been committed by Mr. Fayed are continuing. It would not be appropriate for me to provide more specific information.

  Civilian Employment (figures in thousands)

  1982

  1987

  Change

  Percentage Change

  United Kingdom1

  23,584

  25,060

  +1,476

  +6·3

  Rest of EC

  97,569

  98,920

  +1,351

  +1·4

  1 Over the five-year period 1983 to 1988 the rise was 111 per cent, for the United Kingdom.

  Source: United Kingdom(DE) Rest of EC(Eurostat)

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage reduction in employment in the manufacturing industry sector in the north-west from 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  Between June 1979 and June 1988 the number of employees in employment in the manufacturing industry sector in the North West region fell by 36 per cent.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for 12 months or more in the constituencies of(a) Burnley, (b) Pendle, (c) Hyndburn, (d) Rossendale and (e) Darwen.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. The following table shows for each parliamentary constituency requested, the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for 12 months or more in April 1989, the latest available date.

  Long-Term Unemployed Claimants—April 1989

  Parliamentary constituency

  Unemployed over 12 months

  Burnley

  1,188

  Pendle

  714

  Hyndburn

  650

  Rossendale and Darwen

  532

  Industrial Action (Public Services)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to amending industrial relations law to deal with unofficial industrial action taken by those providing vital public services.

  Malicious Communications Act 1988
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General, how many prosecutions there have been under the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and what was their outcome.

  The Attorney-General
  I regret that such information is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created in the last five years in the United Kingdom and in the European Community as a whole.

  Mr. Cope
  Employment estimates are not yet available for many EC countries after 1987. The table shows the data requested for the five-year period from 1982 to 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Recent industrial action in certain public sector services has been irresponsible and unnecessary. The Government are considering what needs to be done to protect the public interest, and we shall not hesitate to come forward with appropriate proposals for legislation if that proves necessary.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he has received from the EEC Commission about the numbers and scope of directives which it intends to propose under the social charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The European Commission have put forward a preliminary draft proposal for a Community charter of fundamental social rights, which they suggest should be adopted by a solemn declaration of all 12 heads of state and Government. The Commission's preliminary draft of the proposal includes an invitation to the Commission to draw up a programme of work by June 1990. No details of such a programme have been received from the Commission.

  Trade Union Safety Representatives
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current estimated number of trade union safety representatives as defined by the 1977 Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act; and what was the number in 1978.
  581
  Mr. Nicholls
  The health and Safety Executive does not keep records of the number of trade union safety representatives, but the Trades Union Congress currently estimates the numbers to be between 90,000 and 100,000.

  My right hon Friend has no reason to believe that this number has changed significantly since 1978.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps is he taking to deal with the increase in accidents in construction, agriculture and forestry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1989–90 and beyond approved in April by my right hon. Friend contains a number of extra measures designed to stimulate improvements in the health and safety performance of the construction, agricultural and associated industries. For construction these include reaching a target of 100 inspectors engaged on inspection in 1990, targeting inspections on the more hazardous activities and on the quality of site management, preparing new regulations to improve the management of health and safety on construction sites. Similarly for agriculture these include allocating additional resources to the agricultural inspectorate to be targeted primarily on high risk premises, certification of agricultural pesticide users under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, and new guidance on obligations under these and related regulations.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any further plans to tackle the problems of under-reporting of accidents to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  One and a half million copies of HSE's leaflet "Report that accident" have been distributed since 1987. The recent construction blitz campaign reminded small contractors of their reporting obligations. Also, in May and June 1988 an advertising campaign was directed specifically at under-reporting in the footwear and clothing industries and the timber and wooded furniture industries.

  Tourism
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment following his announcement about the future of tourism, which bodies will deal with strategic marketing and marketing policy.

  Mr. Lee
  The British Tourist Authority, the national and English regional tourist boards will carry out these functions.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his announcement of his tourism review will affect the distribution of marketing functions between the British Tourist Authority and the national tourist boards.

  Mr. Lee
  There will be no change in the distribution of marketing functions.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now place in the Library a full copy of the tourism review carried out by his officials and PA Consulting Group.
  582
  Mr. Lee
  No. The report was an internal document which provided a basis for the decisions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the operations of the British Tourist Authority he envisages as being suitable for movement into the private sector.

  Mr. Lee
  A range of activities will be considered.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the top 20 tourist attractions in the South-West in numbers visiting or attending; and if he will indicate the numbers, in each instance, for the previous comparable year.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board's annual survey of visits to attractions gives the following figures for the West Country regional tourist board area in 1987 and 1988.

  Number of visits

  1987

  1988

  Roman baths and pump room, Bath

  873,414

  954,142

  English Riviera centre, Torquay

  275,000

  645,000

  Stonehenge

  617,295

  640,416

  Buckfast abbey

  n.a.

  574,389

  Bristol zoo

  575,000

  571,679

  Dartington cider press centre

  480,000

  561,000

  Babbacombe model village

  490,000

  495,000

  Paignton pier

  n.a.

  465,000

  Cheddar caves

  n.a.

  400,000

  Wells cathedral

  400,000

  360,000

  Paignton zoo

  343,229

  351,398

  Exeter cathedral

  300,000

  347,484

  Wookey Hole caves

  304,690

  332,824

  Clovelly village

  312,000

  327,000

  Cricket St. Thomas wildlife park

  308,990

  303,826

  Bristol City museum and art gallery

  252,504

  280,850

  Arnolfini gallery, Bristol

  400,000

  280,590

  National shire horse centre

  250,000

  275,000

  Devonshire's centre

  200,000

  264,500

  Sea life centre, Weymouth

  n.a.

  250,000

  Truro cathedral

  250,000

  250,000

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what allocation the United Kingdom has been awarded by the European social fund for 1989; and how much had been allocated to each region.

  Mr. Cope
  The Commission of the European Communities has confirmed that for 1989 the United Kingdom has been allocated £418 million towards employment and training schemes from the European social fund. This represents 18–14 per cent. of the fund's budget and means that the United Kingdom is once again receiving more than any other Community member state.

  The regional breakdown is as follows:

  £

  The North

  22,125,684

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20,755,226

  East midlands

  6,599,478

  West midlands

  21,444,259

  East Anglia

  418,785

  South East

  18,083,103

  South West

  2,535,074

  North West

  33,362,018

  Scotland

  31,083,672

  Wales

  18,929,242

  583

  £

  Northern Ireland

  44,920,275

  Schemes operating in more than one region1

  197,744,854

  Total

  418,001,670

  1 Including Government, industrial training boards and nation-alised industry programmes.

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what decisions have been reached on the future of the Co-operative Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The ceiling of financial provision available to support the CDA under current legislation will be reached in 1990–91, and we have been considering whether there is a case for any further support.

  The CDA itself considered the issue and proposed that it should become a body mainly devoted to the promotion of employee share ownership, particularly employee share ownership plans. It proposed that its existing role in providing a central forum for co-operative development should be drawn from and financed by those using it, and that much of its work to promote co-operative development could now be carried out by other organisations.

  The Government are firmly in favour of measures to extend the financial participation of employees in their employing organisations but we see no need for public support for another body to promote ESOPs, when there are a number of private organisations interested and active in this field. The Government did, however, agree with the CDA's view that its original remit could now be carried out by other organisations. We therefore consulted relevant organisations in the co-operative movement seeking their comments on a proposal to wind up the CDA by the time its current grant ceiling is reached.

  Fourteen organisations commented. A number were opposed to closure, largely on the grounds that the CDA should continue to provide a central focus for co-operative development; others pointed to the overlap between the CDA's work and their own. Careful consideration of all the comments made has confirmed our view that the work of the CDA has now reached the stage where it can be carried on by the well-established network of local agencies and other business support bodies, including the new training and enterprise councils which will include co-operatives as well as other forms of business in their plans for enterprise support. We do not consider that co-operative organisations need a Government-sponsored body to co-ordinate or represent them or to take on new functions.

  Our decision is therefore that the agency's life should not be extended when current funding runs out. We

  Col 1

  Col. 2

  Col. 3

  Annual percentage. Increase in Hospital and Community Health Services pay and prices (England)

  Welsh DHA Revenue Allocations: Inflation Assumptions2

  Annual percentage. Increase in GDP (Wales)3

  1978–79

  9·6

  9·04

  12·1

  1979–80

  20·5

  7·94

  14·8

  1980–81

  28·0

  24·84

  13·2

  584
  propose to wind up the agency by order, under the affirmative resolution procedure, during the next parliamentary session. The Government will continue to take a keen interest in co-operatives, which we see as one expression of the fast developing enterprise culture in Britain.

  I would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, director, board and staff of the CDA for the enthusiasm and commitment that they have shown. They have achieved a good deal over the past II years and deserve credit for a job well done.

  Unofficial Strikes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to curb unofficial strikes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Recent industrial action in certain public sector services has been irresponsible and unnecessary. The Government is considering what needs to be done to protect the public interest, and will not hesitate to come forward with appropriate proposals for legislation if that proves necessary.

WALES

  Welsh Health Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what inflation assumptions were built into Welsh health authority budget allocations for the fiscal year 1989–90 and plans for fiscal year 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (2) what was (a) the hospital and community health services' pay and price deflator for Wales, for each fiscal year since 1979, (b) the inflation assumption used in National Health Service budget plans in each year from 1978–79 to 191–92 and (c) the gross domestic product deflator for Wales for each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested cannot be provided exactly in the form asked for. The table shows in column 1 the percentage increase in hospital and community health services pay and prices; the figures are based on English data as no information is collected in Wales. The second column shows the provision for inflation made in district health authorities' initial revenue allocations each year. Because the figures relate to allocations made at the beginning of each year, they do not take account of any supplementary funding made available in year to meet the excess costs of pay awards (mainly for review bodies staff) over and above the initial inflation allowance. They are not therefore comparable with the figures in column 1. Each health authority makes its own plans for inflation in setting its budget for the year ahead; however, these details are not held centrally.
  585

  Col. 1

  Col. 2

  Col. 3

  Annual percentage. Increase in Hospital R and Community Health Services pay and prices (England)

  Welsh DHA Revenue Allocations: Inflation Assumptions2

  Annual percentage. Increase in GDP (Wales)3

  1981–82

  8·2

  7·24

  10·7

  1982–83

  6·5

  4 per cent, pay

  11·5

  9 per cent, prices

  1983–84

  5·1

  6·0

  9·7

  1984–85

  5·8

  3 per cent, pay

  2·3

  5 per cent, prices

  1985–86

  5·2

  3 per cent, pay

  14·9

  4 per cent, prices

  1986–87

  6·9

  4·5

  6·7

  1987–88

  8·5

  3·75

  7·7

  1988–89

  10·5

  4·5

  1—

  1989–90

  1—

  5·0

  1—

  1990–91

  1—

  4·05

  1—

  1991–92

  1—

  3·05

  1—

  1 Projected figures are not available.

  2 Inflation assumptions as contained in the initial recurrent revenue allocations to DHAs.

  3 The information provided relates to calendar years. The figure for 1987–88 is provisional and projections for subsequent years are not available.

  4 Prior to the introduction of cash planning in 1982–83 the inflation allowances made available to health authorities in each financial year reflected the full year effect on spending of forecast increases in pay and prices in the previous November to March and the full and part year effect of further increases forecast to occur during the course of the financial year.

  5 Based on Her Majesty's Treasury forecast of the increase in the gross domestic product deflator

  Tourist Board
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consequences are envisaged for the Wales Tourist Board as the result of the announcements contained in the reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, (Mr. Bevan) by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, (Mr. Fowler) on 6 July,Official Report, column 278; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No direct consequences are envisaged for the Wales tourist board. The more effective arrangements for promoting Britain overseas will provide the board, working with the industry, with the opportunity to increase visitor numbers to Wales in collaboration with the British Tourist Authority.

  Mountain Lane School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will allocate extra funds to Clwyd local education authority to enable the authority to supply an extra mobile classroom at Mountain Lane school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. Clwyd local education authority must decide their priorities for the use of the capital resources available to them. Capital provision for education in Wales was increased by 11 per cent. in 1989–90.

  House Repair Grant
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why there was a delay of a month in notification to Welsh local authorities of changes in the amount of mandatory repairs grant from 75 per cent. to 20 per cent. for landlords under sections 130 and 131 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My officials wrote to Welsh Local authorities notifying them of the statutory instrument and 586
  that an explanatory circular was in preparation as soon as was practicable after the House approved the draft order. The letter issued on 10 January and the order came into effect on 19 January.

  Beach Pollution
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to the beaches along the Welsh side of the Bristol channel to observe the degree of pollution apparent both on the beach and in the sea.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Monitoring of bathing waters is the responsibility of the appropriate water authority.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Cambodia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations he is making to restore Government-to-Government aid in Cambodia in the light of the anticipated Vietnamese withdrawal.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We keep our policy on aid to Cambodia under regular review. Decisions cannot be taken before Vietnam ends it illegal occupation and an acceptable political settlement is in place.

  Overseas Aid and Development
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet his ministerial colleagues of the European Community to discuss overseas development policy and the level of overseas assistance.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  At the next Development Council of Ministers in November, when I expect to discuss a wide range of Community development policy questions.

  Yemen
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the extra aid given to the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen as a result of the floods earlier in 1989.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We gave relief assistance totalling £179,000 in response to this emergency. This aid took the form of tents, blankets, foodstuffs, water purification tablets and vehicles.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the running cost limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Department.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The running cost limit for 1989–90 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is being set at £543·03 million. Further details of provision for individual Departments are set out in the appropriate Estimates volumes.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the numbers of statutory instruments issued by each Government Department in each of the last five years indicating how many were subject to affirmative procedure and how many to negative procedure.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his Department's representatives has had with(a) the Government of Kampuchea, (b) the Government of Vietnam, (c) the Khmer Rouge and (d) Prince Sihanouk.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no dealings with the so-called Government of Kampuchea or with the Khmer Rouge. We have regular contact with the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam through our respective embassies. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Glenarthur, paid the first ever visit by a British Minister to the SRV. from 9 to 14 April 1989. Most recently, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister called on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State on 28 June 1989. We have regular meetings with Prince Sihanouk and his representatives. The Prince saw my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend he Secretary of State during his visit to London in October 1988.
  588
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be the United Kingdom's representatives at the Paris conference on the future of Cambodia.

  Mr. Eggar
  The composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the international conference on Cambodia in Paris, to which formal invitations have yet to be issued, has not yet been decided. But we expect to be invited and to play an active part.

  Nuclear Weapons (Testing)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government's plan to respond to the proposal made by the Soviet Union on 24 June that a global moratorium be implemented on the testing of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The Soviet proposal is not a new one. A moratorium would not be compatible with our policy on the testing of nuclear weapons which was set out by the then Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), in answer to a question on 27 June 1988.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the number of times Ministers have had discussions about the Cyprus problem with President Vassiliou and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr. Raul Denktash, respectively, since the last presidential elections in Cyprus.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has discussed the Cyprus problem with President Vassiliou on five occasions since his election in February 1988. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was present at two of those meetings and has also met Mr. Vassiliou separately on three other occasions. I attended one of those meetings and have also met the President twice separately. For reasons that are well known to the House, Mr. Denktash has not been received by Ministers during that period.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans exist to ensure the safe disposal of both chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant material and chlorofluorocarbon II in the foam in refrigeration and air-cooling equipment under the control of his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what finance has been made available to the Hong Kong authorities for the care and settlement of Vietnamese boat people over each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following funds have been made available to the Hong Kong Government for the care of
  589
  the Vietnamese boat people from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNCHR)'s general programme:

  US$ million

  1985

  4·3

  1986

  4·8

  1987

  4·5

  1988

  9·2

  1989 (to date)

  7·0

  In addition to our regular contributions to the UNHCR's general programme, we have also contributed the following funds to UNHCR for specific Hong Kong purposes:

  £ million

  1988

  1·1

  1989

  7·1

  We have also pledged this year £4.5 million directly to the Hong Kong Government for emergency accommodation, and £5 million towards the cost of a planned refugee processing centre in the Philippines which would accommodate Vietnamese refugees now in Hong Kong.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present permanent population of the Falkland Islands; and what were the figures for the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the last census held on 16 November 1986, the population of the Falkland Islands was 1,916. At the 1980 census, the population was 1,813. No other figures are available.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people formerly resident in Hong Kong and all associated territories and holding British passports have been accepted for permanent settlement into the United Kingdom in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been asked to reply:

  The numbers of British dependent territory citizens from Hong Kong accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in the years 1979–88 are published in table 22 of the 1987 and 1988 editions of the annual Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom" (Cm. 415 and Cm. 726), copies of which are in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Toxic Waste
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last had a meeting with the chief inspector of Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate to discuss the future programme for the existing radioactive and toxic wastes arising from the defence programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent meeting with the director of Her Majesty's inspectorate of 590
  pollution or his chief inspectors, but officials are in frequent contact with staff of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, in addition to their attendance at periodic inter departmental official meetings chaired by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Ministry of Defence site has ever violated environmental regulations agreed with Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate, the Department of Health and Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Welsh and Scottish Offices, or the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, in regard to the storage, transport or disposal of radioactive and toxic wastes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Although the Ministry of Defence as a Crown Department has immunity from certain regulations, it seeks to observe standards which are no less stringent than those required of civil operators. Unfortunately, accidents occur from time to time and may for example lead to minor dispersals of toxic or radioactive materials in contravention of the "agreements" reached with regulatory Departments. All such incidents are reported to the regulatory authorities, fully investigated and measures taken to avoid their recurrence.

  Venture Glider
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reached a decision on the type of motor glider selected to replace the Venture at volunteer gliding schools.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. A decision is expected very shortly.

  Explosive Devices (Coastal Waters)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by geographical area, the number of second world war explosive devices which have been discovered in British coastal waters in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Precise records of the number of such finds in each of the past ten years are not maintained. Each year, however, some 30 or 40 mines and 100 torpedoes, bombs or large calibre shells of world war I or world war II origin are found in British coastal waters.

  Tornado Crash (RAF Akrotiri)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the crash of a Tornado aircraft at RAF Akrotiri on 4 July.

  Mr. Neubert
  On 4 July a Tornado F3 aircraft (tail number ZE 834) of No. 23 squadron, RAF Leeming, on detachment to RAF Akrotiri, suffered a collapsed nosewheel on landing after a routine training mission. Both crew members ejected successfully sustaining only minor injuries. The aircraft came to rest just off the runway. The extent of the damage sustained in this accident has not yet been established.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to conduct a full environmental pollution audit of the military nuclear fuel cycle, including
  591
  data from countries where the uranium used in the United Kingdom programme was mined and milled; and if he will publish the results at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The environmental impact of the processing of nuclear materials in the defence nuclear programme for which this department is responsible has been evaluated and conforms fully with United Kingdom legislative requirements. As regards standards in overseas countries, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 9 February at column 766 to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas).

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if radioactive wastes arising from the deployment of United Kingdom's nuclear forces abroad on land or at sea is(a) disposed of in foreign countries or (b) returned to the United Kingdom for disposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 25 January 1989 at column 653. Contingency arrangements exist for the handling of radioactive wastes arising, either on a routine or emergency basis, from United Kingdom military operations overseas. The decision between disposal abroad under locally approved arrangements and return to the United Kingdom depends on circumstances; it would not be in the national interest to elaborate.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to deploy regularly a Skyguard fire control radar system to monitor the heights of low flying aircraft in areas of urban concentration such as Swansea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Near-Miss (West Germany)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent incident involving an RAF Phantom based at Wildenrath in West Germany having to take evasive action to avoid collision with a Canberra aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  On 6 July, during a routine training sortie, a RAF Phantom based at RAF Wildenrath in West Germany took evasive action to avoid a RAF Canberra aircraft operating in the same area. The Phantom navigator, believing the aircraft to be in danger, ejected successfully, suffering minor injuries. Neither aircraft was damaged. The Phantom returned to land safely at RAF Wildenrath. A unit inquiry into the incident has been convened.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 13 June,Official Report, column 689 he will give details of the assessment made following design work carried out at Royal Air Force Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 18 April 1989 at column 111. No decisions have
  592
  been taken to proceed with these projects but preliminary design work commissioned from the PSA in August 1988 indicates that the estimated costs of modifying the facilities at RAF Upper Heyford would be as follows:

  £million

  Additions to the flight simulator facility

  1·0

  Additions to the engine shop

  1·2

  Additions to the avionics maintenance shop

  1·7

  Birkbeck College
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why inaccurate information about Birkbeck college was given to the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday on Saturday 1 July by officials of his Department; what action is being taken against those responsible; what arrangements are being made to help repair the potential damage done to Birkbeck's reputation; and what changes are being made in the personnel and organisation of his Department's press office.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On the evening of Friday 30 June officials were asked to check the facts concerning any Ministry of Defence contracts with Birkbeck college. In an effort to be helpful, and in the limited time available, they did their best to do so. Nothing that was said confirmed the assertions made in the subsequent press reports. Changes in the MOD press office are neither called for nor planned.

  My noble Friend Lord Trefgarne wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, Master of Birkbeck College, on 6 July explaining that the MOD was entirely satisfied with the work that the college was doing and that no papers had been recalled on security grounds.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to ensure the safe disposal of both chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant materials and chlorofluorocarbon II in the foam in refrigeration and air-cooling equipment under the control of his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Headquarter Contracts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the total amounts paid by his Department in respect of headquarter contracts to United Kingdom-based contractors in each of the six years up to 31 March.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: Total payments made in respect of headquarters contracts to United Kingdom-based contractors in each of the six years to 31 March 1989 were as follows:

  £million

  1983–84

  6,212

  1984–85

  6,879

  1985–86

  7,260

  593

  £ million

  1986–87

  7,501

  1987–88

  8,316

  1988–89

  8,041

PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding local government.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received representations about a number of matters relating to local government.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received any recent representations regarding nuclear energy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a number of letters from members of the public about various aspects of nuclear energy.

  National Heritage
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the national heritage.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister receives representations frequently. The national heritage is vital to the quality of life. Since 1979 Government expenditure on the national heritage has increased by more than 75 per cent. in real terms.

  Legal Reform
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the new proposals for reform of the legal profession.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a number of representations on the Government's consultation papers, which were published with a view to seeing that the public has the best possible access to legal services of sound quality.

  NHS Reform
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has had on the National Health Service White Paper.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received some 8,500 representations on the White Paper; many correspondents give strong support for its objectives and endorse its proposals.

  Part-time Work
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding part-time work.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister receives representations about part-time working from time to time.

  I know that the Select Committee on Employment is currently undertaking an inquiry into part-time working and I look forward to its report when it becomes available.

  Human Rights (USSR)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding human rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  We receive many representations which reflect the deep concern in this country about human rights in the Soviet Union. We are continuing to press the Soviet authorities over a range of individual cases, and over the wider need for institutionalised reform. These efforts do bear fruit. In the past year, 68 refusenik cases which we have raised have been resolved satisfactorily.

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding human rights in China.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a delegation of Chinese students on 28 June. My right hon. Friend has also received a number of representations expressing shock and outrage at recent events in China. These are, of course, sentiments that the British Government share.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding rural housing policy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister receives representations on rural housing policy from time to time.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has had on water privatisation.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has had on water privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister receives many representations about water privatisation, which provides the best framework and conditions for achieving even higher standards of water quality.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Cyril Townsend
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the Channel tunnel.
  595
  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister frequently receives representations about various aspects of the Channel tunnel.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government expect to publish a plain person's guide to the Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to do so. Local authorities have a statutory duty to publish information about the welfare services they provide and, as a matter of good practice, we would expect them to produce this in a form which is readily understandable.

  World Trade
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received in connection with world trade.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a number of representations about world trade. The Government will continue to combat protectionism and to work for open world markets which are of benefit to our exporters and the world economy as a whole.

  Privatisation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has had on privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister receives a number of representations from time to time regarding the privatisation programme.

  Railway Strikes
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the recent train strikes.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a number of representations on this matter. The rail strikes are pointless and damaging and have shown no regard to the interests of passengers.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government frequently receive representations about reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The measures agreed at the February 1988 European Council, particularly those providing for budgetary discipline and for the stabilisation of agricultural production and expenditure, represent the most significant reforms to date. The benefits of reform are already apparent and farmers can look to the future with
  596
  increasing confidence. The Government's policy is to build on those major reforms in EC negotiations and to work with our GATT partners to fulfil the commitment to achieve progressive and substantial reductions in agricultural support and protection.

  Madrid Summit
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received any recent representations regarding the Madrid summit.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The statement my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in this House on 29 June has been widely welcomed.

  Private Currencies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will urge her fellow Heads of Government at the world economic summit to allow private stock banks in their countries to issue their own notes and coins.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Legal Tender Laws
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will urge her fellow Heads of Government at the world's economic summit to abolish their legal tender laws and allow competing currencies in their economies.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Central Banks
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will urge her fellow Heads of Government to privatise their central banks.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  European Economic and Social Committee
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list in the Official Report the names and current qualifications of the British members of the European Economic and Social Committee.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  Group I (Employers)
  Mr. Ian Campbell, CVO—Former Vice Chairman British Railways Board, part-time member BR Board, responsible for research.
  Miss Gina Dodd—Chartered Engineer (rtd).
  Mr. Ken Gardner—Consultant in food and food law technology.
  Mr. Colin Hancock—Management consultant; adviser to the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit of the Department of Employment; counsellor within the Small Firms Service, Department of Employment.
  Mr. John de Normann—Former head of ICI Building Group; Director, Executive Committee of the National Council of Building Material Producers; Member, Board of British Standards Institution.
  Mr. Bill Poeton—President of the Union of Independent Companies; chairman of the Poeton Group of Electroplating companies.

  597
  Mr. Keith Tamlin—Director, Mail Order Traders' Association; member of Post Office Users' National Council; Member, Council of the Retail Consortium.
  Mr. John Whitworth—Former Director, International Shipping Federation; Chairman, Pension Fund.

  Group II (Employees)
  Mr. Jack Boddy, MBE—Former Agricultural Trade Group Secretary, TGWU.
  Mr. Campbell Christie—General Secretary, Scottish TUC; Chairman, Office Technology, Economic Development Committee, NEDC.
  Mr. Eric Hammond, OBE—General Secretary, Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU).
  Mr. Tom Jenkins—Assistant Secretary, TUC, International Department.
  Miss Ada Maddocks—National Organising Officer, NALGO.
  Mr. Alec Smith—General Secretary, National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers (NUTGW).
  Mr. Larry Smith, OBE—Former Executive Officer Press and Information, TGWU.

  Group III (Various interests)
  Mr. Wilfred Aspinall—Executive Director, Managerial, Professional and Staff Liaison Group (MPG).
  Professor Bill Black—Former Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Belfast; Economic Adviser, Department of Economic Development, Northern Ireland.
  Mrs. Shreela Flather, JP—Councillor and former Mayor of Windsor and Maidenhead; Member Social Security Advisory Committee; Barrister; past Member, Commission for Racial Equality.
  Mr. Robert Moreland—Former MEP; Member, Council for Business Graduate Association.
  Dr. Ann Robinson—Head of Policy Unit, Institute of Directors; former lecturer in Politics, University College Cardiff.
  Mr. Graham Speirs—Former Secretary, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Vice Chairman, Age Concern Scotland.
  Dr. Peter Storie-Pugh, CBE—Former President, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
  Mr. Michael Strauss—Co-ordinating Director—Policy, NFU.
  Mrs. Alma Williams, MBE—President, National Federation of Consumer Groups; Vice President, Consumers' Association (UK); Permanent Representative to UNESCO of the International Organisation of Consumers.

  Gifts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister why, pursuant to her answer of 10 July, she will not list all those gifts she has received in her official capacity over the past 12 months while on overseas visits.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Paris.

TRANSPORT

  New Road Schemes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the COBA criteria for construction of new roads being studied in his London transport assessment studies will apply with, or without modification, to any selected road schemes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Any road scheme arising from the London assessment studies will be appraised using the Department's normal scheme appraisal methodology. This includes a full economic and environmental assessment.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what significance is attached to saving in journey time in current COBA assessments of new road schemes; and what weighting is given therein to design speeds of new roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  User benefits on COBA are derived from savings in journey times on links and at junctions, accidents and vehicle operating costs. In a representative scheme 90 per cent. of the benefits could be attributable to time savings. Design speeds are consistent with the anticipated vehicle speeds on the road and are contained in Department of Transport departmental standard TD9/81, "Road Layout and Geometry: Highway Link Design."

  A43
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce the preferred route for the A43 Silverstone bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are giving careful consideration to route options to the east or west of the village. The choice is difficult. We hope to announce the preferred route soon.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents in the last five years have involved a vehicle crashing through a crash barrier on the central reservation of a motorway or a dual carriageway road.
  599
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table shows the number of accidents on motorways or dual carriageway roads in which at least one vehicle left the carriageway offside on to the central reservation. The number of accidents is broken down by whether the vehicle entering the central reservation hit the central crash barrier, and whether it crossed the central reserve.

  Accidents involving a vehicle leaving the carriageway onto central reservation: Great Britain, 1983–1987

  Number of accidents where at least one vehicle left the carriageway offside onto the central reservation

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Percentage change 1987–83

  Vehicle hit central barrier

  Stayed on reservation or rebounded

  579

  767

  752

  844

  918

  59

  Crossed central reservation

  94

  87

  90

  115

  118

  26

  Total

  669

  852

  834

  953

  1,031

  54

  Vehicle did not hit central barrier

  Stayed on reservation or rebounded

  1,414

  1,509

  1,572

  1,585

  1,545

  9

  Crossed central reservation

  600

  755

  710

  754

  720

  20

  Total

  1,990

  2,231

  2,254

  2,299

  2,236

  12

  All accidents

  Stayed on reservation or rebounded

  1,993

  2,276

  2,324

  2,429

  2,463

  24

  Crossed central reservation

  694

  842

  800

  869

  838

  21

  Total

  2,659

  3,083

  3,088

  3,252

  3,267

  23

  Note.—Because some accidents will have involved more than one vehicle, the totals are less than the sum of their constituent parts.

  The following table shows the number of accidents involving vehicles on motorways or dual carriageway

  Number of accidents

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Accidents where a vehicle crossed the central reservation

  694

  842

  800

  869

  838

  Accidents where a vehicle hit the central crash barrier and crossed the central reservation

  94

  87

  90

  115

  118

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will review the specification for crash barriers on motorways and dual carriageways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The specification for safety fences is kept under continual review and changes are introduced whenever justified. A recent example is the introduction, subject to approval under European law, of a design of wire rope safety fence that I announced on 22 December 1988,Official Report, cols. 415–16.

  A range of higher containment fences and barriers has been developed. By definition, they are considerably less forgiving than existing safety fences. The Department is therefore undertaking a careful assessment of the costs and benefits of their possible deployment. Some further impact testing is required before this assessment can be fully completed. Research currently being carried out in some other European countries will be relevant. It will be some time before a decision can be made.

  Drink-Driving (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide details of the number of road transport drink-related accidents in Durham, giving the most recent figures and annual figures for the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table below shows the total number of accidents in Durham in each of the years 1983
  600
  The number of accidents in which a vehicle crossed the central reserve after hitting the central crash barrier increased from 94 in 1983 to 118 in 1987, and increase of 26 per cent. This is partly due to the installation of more crash barriers, as reflected in an increase of 54 per cent. in the number of accidents where a vehicle hit the central barrier, but only 12 per cent. where no central barrier was involved.

  roads, from 1983 to 1987, where the vehicle either crossed the central reservation or the vehicle hit the central crash barrier and crossed the central reservation.

  to 1987, and the number of accidents in which at least one driver or rider failed a breath test. This is the most common measure of drink-related accidents. These figures will be affected by the proportion of drivers who are tested after an injury crash. It is not possible to produce precise statistics of drink-related accidents because some drivers will have been too severely injured to be breath-tested. The blood alcohol level of drivers who die within 12 hours of an accident are provided from coroner's reports. These are not always complete and exclude those drivers who die after this period but within the 30-day rule for a toad accident fatality.

  Road accidents in Durham in which the driver failied the breath test: 1983–87

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Accidents involving breath test failures

  103

  136

  143

  113

  127

  All road accidents

  1,709

  1,771

  1,789

  1,835

  1,789

  Road Works (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why road works are currently taking place on the A1 , the M1 and the M62 in South Yorkshire; and how long he expects this situation to continue.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The road works currently being carried out on these roads are essential major maintenance
  601
  operations. They form part of our phased programme of works, much of which has to be undertaken in the summer months.

  The works consist of a series of schemes covering both carriageway strengthening and bridge maintenance works. We expect completion of these on the Al(M) and M62 by November and on the MI by next February.

  Motorway Signs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department carries out any inspection on the maintenance of motorway signs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Detailed inspection and maintenance of motorway signs is carried out by the Department's agents in accordance with the frequencies set out in the Department's code of practice for routine maintenance, a copy of which is in the Library. In addition, agents' staff who travel the motorways in the couse of their duties look out for damage or other defects which require prompt attention.

  Plutonium (Jumbo Jets)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made an assessment of the implication of a cargo jumbo jet carrying plutonium packages(a) crashing on take-off or landing, or (b) blowing-up in mid-air, in terms of environmental contamination.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The transport of plutonium by air has been studied by the Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials (ACTRAM). Its conclusions are published in a report entitled "The Transport of Civil Plutonium by Air". A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The report concluded that the risks of a breach of the packaging during a severe accident were negligible.

  A copy of the report has been passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is currently studying the transport of radioactive materials by air.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the increased import of hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes that will be transported by road and rail in the United Kingdom following the border deregulation in 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no reason to suppose that there will be an increase in the volume of such materials with the abolition of border controls.

  Private Cars
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to discourage the increased use of private cars in the period up to the year 2000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) (column 406) on 10 July.

  I also refer the hon. Lady to "Transport in London" issued in January.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the present programme for proposed road improvements to the A27 and A259 roads subject to the necessary funds being available and statutory procedures being approved.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  "Policy for Roads in England: 1987" (Cm. 125) lists the following national trunk road programme schemes for the A27/A259/A261 route:

  (a) Planned start of construction April 1989 to March 1991

  A27 Westhampnett bypass

  A27 Polegate bypass

  A259 Winchelsea bypass

  (b) Planned start of construction from April 1991 onwards

  A27 Arundel bypass

  A27 Patching junction improvement

  A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western bypass

  A259 Hastings Eastern bypass

  A259 Rye improvement

  A259 New Romney bypass

  A259 St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch bypass

  A261 M20-A259 Hythe improvement

  In addition work is under way on the A27 Pevensey bypass and will start shortly on the first contract for the A27 Brighton bypass. Two further contracts for the Brighton bypass are expected to be let next year; timing of the fourth contract is subject to outstanding statutory procedures.

  The recent White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" (Cm. 693) proposes the following further national trunk road programme schemes, for which timing has still to be determined:

  A27 Worthing to Lancing improvement

  A27 Lewes to Polegate improvement

  A259 Pevensey to Bexhill improvement

  A259 Corridor improvements—

  Guestling Thorn diversion

  Icklesham diversion

  Walland Marsh improvement

  Brookland diversion

  There is also a number of small schemes, particularly junction improvements and accident prevention measures, at various stages of preparation within the Department's south-east regional programme.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comments he has received from the Royal Fine Arts Commission about the redesign of the east London river crossing bridge.

  Mr. Channon
  The views of the RFAC will be included in the report on the review of the bridge design. A,copy will be placed in the Library of the House when a decision on the bridge is announced.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the change in the proportion of in patient waiting list cases waiting for more than one year for treatment in the Warrington district health authority between March 1986 and the latest available date.
  603
  Mr. Mellor
  The percentage of cases on Warrington district health authority's inpatient waiting list waiting a year or more dropped from 42 per cent. to 20 per cent., between 31 March 1986 and 30 September 1988.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce hospital waiting lists in Durham district health authority area.

  Mr. Mellor
  As part of our drive to reduce long waiting lists and times, £166,431 has been allocated from the waiting list fund to Durham district health authority. By March 1990 this will have enabled an additional 371 in-patients and day cases and an extra 1,135 outpatients to be treated.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the progress of the waiting list initiative in Warrington health authority and in Halton health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  As part of our drive to reduce long waiting lists and times, £468,000 has been allocated from the waiting list fund to Warrington district health authority and £491,000 to Halton district health authority. By March 1990 this will have enabled an additional 3,157 inpatients and day cases and an extra 375 outpatients to be treated in Warrington and 4,682 additional inpatients and day cases in Halton. At September 1988 no one waited longer than one year in Halton. In Warrington the number waiting over a year stood at one third of the 1979 figure.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health programmes for elderly people which currently have the support of his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department, in partnership with leading voluntary groups, organises and funds the "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, offering advice on how to keep warm in winter. Among the voluntary groups awarded grant aid under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, those offering health promotion activities or advice include EXTEND (on exercise and fitness), the National Osteoporosis Society, Age Exchange Theatre Company (programmes of mental stimulation) and the Newcastle Council for the Disabled and the Disabled Living Services in Manchester (both for projects on incontinence). We have also welcomed the work of the "Age Well" campaign, organised jointly by Age Concern England and the Health Education Authority, and that of the Centre for Health and Retirement Education, organised through the Health Education Authority and the university of London. The "Age Well" campaign has been allocated a grant this year as part of the disbursement of the moneys arising from the effect of the retail prices index calculation error on social security benefits.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to the Health Education Authority regarding the future development of the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health Education Authority is currently preparing its strategic plan for the next five years. The planning guidelines issued to the Health Education 604
  Authority ask it to take account of the elderly in its forward planning process. The strategic plan is due to be submitted to the Department of Health by October.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many donations of blood were collected by the Blood Transfusion Service in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information available relates to the number of donors bled by the National Blood Transfusion Service and is given in the table.

  Calendar Year

  England and Wales

  1978

  2,123,607

  1979

  2,144,484

  1980

  2,220,036

  1981

  2,255,731

  1982

  2,058,994

  1983

  2,135,840

  1984

  2,158,626

  1985

  2,119,060

  1986

  2,128,450

  1987

  2,094,316

  1988

  '2,140,810

  1 Provisional

  Note: For the years 1978 to 1981 the figures include a small number of people who reported to the NBTS but from whom it was inappropriate to take blood on that occasion.

  Pertussis Vaccine
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ban the use of the pertussis vaccine on children suffering from a serious neurological illness or convulsions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The memorandum "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease" (Published by HMSO) which was prepared by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation for the Health Department, and was issued last year to all doctors and health visitors, contains clear advice on contra-indications to the pertussis vaccine. They include children with a documented history of cerebral damage in the neonatal period, and children with a personal history of convulsions.

  Traumatic Brain Injury
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of patients recovering from traumatic brain injury who require inpatient rehabilitation; and how many places for such treatment are currently provided within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  No national estimate is available of the number of patients recovering from traumatic brain injury who require inpatient rehabilitation. Information about the incidence of traumatic brain injury is contained in the reports of the Royal College of Physicians on "Physical Disability in 1986 and Beyond" and the Medical Disability Society on "The Management of Traumatic Brain Injury", and we have drawn these reports to the attention of health authorities. It is for individual regional and district health authorities to assess how many of the traumatically brain-injured patients in their area require inpatient rehabilitation.
  605
  Information on the number of NHS places for the inpatient rehabilitation of traumatically brain-injured patients is not available centrally.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage regional health authorities to provide inpatient rehabilitation facilities for patients recovering from the effects of traumatic brain injury.

  Mr. Mellor
  In November last year, we issued guidance to health authorities on the development of services for people with physical or sensory disabilities (Health Notice (88)26, a copy of which is in the Library). This included advice to give particular attention to the rehabilitation of patients with brain injury when planning services for physically and sensorily disabled people.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of hospitals referred to him by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution whose facilities fell short of acceptable standards under the Medicines (Administration of Radioactive Substances) Regulations and under sections 6 and 7 (Disposal and Accumulation of Waste) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 11 July, concerning inspections carried out under the Medicines (Administrations of Radioactive Substances) Regulations.

  Reports of inspections carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under sections 6 and 7 of the Radioactive Substances Act are not referred to this Department for action, as it is for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to enforce those regulations.

  Exhaust Fumes
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the overall cost to the Health Service and economy of lung and other diseases attributed to motor vehicle exhaust fumes.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available.

  Medical Defence Subscriptions
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to managers of regional health authorities regarding the contractual obligation of hospital medical and dental staff to subscribe to a defence organisation, following the consultation paper "Medical Defence Subscriptions", published on 20 March.

  Mr. Mellor
  Officials wrote on 29 June confirming that the contractual obligation of hospital medical and dental staff to subscribe to a medical defence organisation remains in force, unless and until alternative arrangements are introduced, following the Health Department's consultation paper.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans exist to ensure the safe disposal of both chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant material and chlorofluoro-carbon II in the foam in refrigeration and air-cooling equipment under the control of his Department.
  606
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave today.

  Healthy Diets
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research into the amount of food required to provide a healthy diet for adults and provide an assessment of the cost of such food.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The wide variety of foods available in Britain today means that there is an almost infinite number of ways of constructing healthy, and also less healthy, diets. The cost of the diet will depend more on the particular selection of foods than the healthiness of the diet.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many positive HIV antibody test results there were until(a) 31 March 1988 and (b) 31 March 1989 in each regional health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: The table shows the positive HIV antibody test resuls reported to CDSC for the time period requested, for England and Wales.

  England

  By 31 March 1988

  By 31 March 1989

  Northern

  245

  286

  Yorkshire

  266

  310

  Trent

  210

  248

  East Anglia

  134

  160

  North West Thames

  2,234

  2,820

  North East Thames

  1,432

  1,860

  South East Thames

  780

  916

  South West Thames

  214

  266

  Wessex

  204

  234

  Oxford

  265

  332

  South Western

  192

  236

  West Midlands

  311

  351

  Mersey

  133

  154

  North Western

  279

  348

  Channel Isles

  11

  20

  Wales

  91

  123

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest number of positive HIV antibody test results, and the cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS, in each regional health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: The latest numbers of positive antibody test results, and the cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS, reported to and accepted by CDSC, are given in the table. Some very recently diagnosed cases of AIDS may not yet have been accepted by CDSC so they may not yet appear in the table.

  England

  HIV antibody test results (end June 1989)

  AIDS cases cum-ulative total (end June 1989

  Northern

  297

  53

  Yorkshire

  314

  62

  Trent

  267

  46

  East Anglia

  161

  28

  North West Thames

  2,968

  949

  North East Thames

  1,965

  433

  South East Thames

  944

  253

  607

  England

  HIV antibody test results (end June 1989)

  AIDS cases cum-ulative total (end June 1989

  South West Thames

  283

  78

  Wessex

  242

  52

  Oxford

  340

  48

  South Western

  248

  47

  West Midlands

  358

  50

  Mersey

  154

  34

  North Western

  373

  86

  Channel Isles

  20

  2

  Wales

  131

  37

  Total

  9,065

  2,258

  Universities (United Kingdom) (academic years)

  Polytechnics (England) (financial years)

  Books

  Journals etc

  Books and Journal's etc

  Cash £ million

  Index

  Cash £ million

  Index

  Cash £ million

  Index

  1978–79

  9·20

  100·0

  7·98

  100·0

  6·94

  100·0

  1979–80

  9·52

  88·2

  9·06

  96·6

  6·97

  85·5

  1980–81

  10·58

  85·5

  10·10

  94·0

  6·82

  73·0

  1981–82

  10·62

  79·1

  10·91

  93·6

  9·10

  89·8

  1982–83

  11·73

  82·3

  12·50

  101·1

  9·71

  90·2

  1983–84

  12·73

  85·6

  14·40

  111·1

  9·21

  81·8

  1984–85

  13·44

  85·6

  16·24

  119·2

  9·92

  83·8

  1985–86

  14·15

  86·2

  17·58

  123·4

  10·05

  81·2

  1986–87

  13·69

  80·1

  19·26

  129·9

  10·56

  81·9

  1987–88

  14·38

  79·4

  19·76

  125·7

  112·40

  90·8

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on library spending in the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to improve the provision of books and periodicals for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Responsibility for libraries in universities, pollytechnics and colleges lies with individual institutions. It falls to them to decide their funding priorities within the total resources at their disposal.

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish details of any standard funding agreement drawn up by his Department for the establishment of city technology colleges under section 105 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  The funding agreements will cover both capital and recurrent expenditure for CTCs, arrangements for the payment of grant and conditions attaching to it. they are designed to place CTCs on an equal footing with LEA maintained schools in similar areas.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the provision of any form of indemnity to sponsors of city technology colleges against the possibility of future repayment of grant monies paid under section 105 of the Education Reform Act 1988; and if any such indeminity is currently being considered.

  Mr. Butcher
  Section 105(6) of the Education Reform Act provides for the Secretary of State to indemnify a person who has entered into an agreement with him to establish a city technology college, in the event of that

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Library Spending
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much(a) universities and (b) polytechnics have spent on (i) books and (ii) journals and periodicals in each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 = 100.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is set out in the table. There may, in addition, he relevant spending within departments.

  agreement being terminated by the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is not currently considering any such indemnity.

  Education (No. 2) Act 1986
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the wording of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  None.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his policy toward adult literacy and special needs courses.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has consistently made clear the high priority which the Government attach to meeting the literacy and numeracy needs of adults. The Department's grant to the adult literacy and basic skills unit (ALBSU) for the current year is £2,724,000. This represents an increase of almost 10 per cent. over the level of grant in the previous year. The BBC will be launching a series of programmes on adult literacy and numeracy in the autumn. The Department and the Training Agency are co-operation with ALBSU to support this initiative.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds he has made available in each of the last five years for the education of mentally handicapped children.

  Mr. Butcher
  The majority of Government revenue support for education provided by local authorities is
  609
  channelled through block grant, which is not hypothecated to services or to particular activities within services. Specific grants are, however, paid in aid of particular educational expenditure under the education support grant programme, and the local education authority training grants scheme (which replaced the in-service teacher training grants). Since 1 April 1985 an estimated total of £45 million of expenditure related to education for children and students with special educational needs, including those with mental handicaps, has been assisted through various activities under these specific grant programmes.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to review his policy toward health and safety requirements in schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend will continue his policy of attaching great priority toward health and safety requirements in schools and the Department will continue to provide advice and guidance on good practice.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticide Residues
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are made for pesticide residues in products intended for sale to consumers; and what research is being carried out to ascertain the effect of such residues on people.

  Mr. Ryder
  Monitoring is carried out by the Government's working party on pesticide residues and the results are published. This monitoring involves the analysis of some 2,000 to 3,000 samples of home produced and imported food and agricultural produce per year, with individual samples being examined for a wide range of pesticide residues at a cost of over £1 million.

  Before a pesticide is approved for use its likely effect on consumers is assessed if its use is shown to leave residues in food. Approval would not be given if this assessment suggested any risk to the health of consumers.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he expects the following measures will affect the emissions of greenhouse gases:(a) the environmentally sensitive area scheme, and (b) the set-aside scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Both the environmentally sensitive areas and the set-aside schemes should reduce fertiliser usage and thereby help limit nitrous oxide emissions. The planting of woodlands on set-aside land would fix carbon dioxide for longer periods than conventional agriculture.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give the area in hectares in each environmentally sensitive area of agricultural land excluding farm woodland;

  (2) if he will list the estimated length of hedgerow in the environmentally sensitive area of (a) Shropshire borders, and (b) Suffolk river valleys.
  610
  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cows in each environmentally sensitive area(a) prior to designation, and (b) the latest figures available since designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the work he has contracted on the economic and social effects of environmentally sensitive areas when it is completed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I will publish information on the economic and social effects of environmentally sensitive areas together with information on their environmental impact when all the contracted work has been completed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the areas for possible designation as environmentally sensitive on the initial list submitted to him by the Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission.

  Mr. Ryder
  The areas initially identified in Great Britain by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are as follows:

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  1. Shetland

  2. Orkney

  3. Central Deeside

  4. Caithness and North West Sutherland Coast

  5. Uists and Benbecula

  6. Inner Hebrides Coastal crofting and farming

  7. Nithsdale

  8. Breadalbane

  9. Strathallan

  10. Whitlaw/Eildon

  11. Northumberland National Park, Moorland

  12. South Solway

  13. North Pennines

  14. Lake District

  15. Arnside and Silverdale

  16. Yorkshire Dales

  17. North York Moors

  18. Lower Derwent Valley

  19. Peak District

  20. Shropshire Hills

  21. Clun Valley

  27. Wyre Forest

  23. Nene Washes and Valley

  24. Ouse Washes and Valley

  25. Breckland

  26. The Broads

  27. Suffolk Coast and Heaths

  28. Dedham Vale

  29. North Kent Marshes

  30. North Downs

  31. Ashdown Forest

  32. Pevensey Levels

  33. South Downs

  34. Surrey Heaths

  35. Itchen Valley

  36. Test Valley

  37. New Forest grazings

  38. North Wessex Downs

  39. South Wiltshire Downs

  40. Mendips

  41. Somerset Levels and Moors

  42. Exmoor

  43. Dartmoor

  44. Bodmin Moor

  611

  45. West Penwith Moors

  46. Anglesey

  47. Lleyn

  48. Southern Snowdonia

  49. East Montgomeryshire and East Radnorshire

  50. Mynydd Elenydd

  51. Radnor Forest and South Radnorshire Uplands

  52. Black Mountain

  53. Black Mountains, West Brecon Beacons

  54. Gower

  55. Teifi

  56. Pembrokeshire

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of occasions that the farmers liaison group for each environmentally sensitive area has met since 1 July.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are no farmers liaison groups in any environmentally sensitive area.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the statutory and voluntary organisations represented on the formal liaison groups for each of the environmentally sensitive areas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are no formal liaison arrangements in any environmentally sensitive area, although informal arrangements exist which vary to meet local needs and circumstances. In all cases regular contact is maintained with a wide range of statutory and voluntary organisations who have an interest in the scheme.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each of the last five years hill livestock compensatory allowances have been refused to farmers in the less favoured areas on the grounds that the ewe density on the farms concerned exceeded the European Community stocking limits.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The EC structures regulation (79785), which provides the basic framework for paying HLCAs, does not currently impose European Community stocking limits as such, although allowances may not exceed 101 ECUs per livestock unit and per hectare. Because the rates set in the United Kingdom have been below the 101 ECUs limit, it has not in itself affected ewe stocking densities.

  However, under national legislation, limits are imposed on the number of ewes per hectare on which HLCAs are paid (six in the severely disadvantaged areas and nine in the disadvantaged areas).

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer on 10 July, how much it would cost to provide the information on appointments to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Assuming around 90 entries, my best estimate is about £500.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans exist to ensure the safe disposal of both chlorofluorocarbon refrigerent material 612
  and chlorofluorocarbon II in the foam in refrigeration and air-cooling equipment under the control of his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment today.

  Food Stockpiles
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is the total amount of wheat, beef and olive oil which is stockpiled: (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in the European Economic Community as a whole, in:(a) 1989, (b) 1984 and (c) 1979; and what was the total cost of storage and maintaining these for 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1989, c. 242–44]: An error has occurred in my previous reply. The correct figures of the cost of storing and maintaining these stocks during 1988 was:

  £ million5

  European Community

  United Kingdom

  Cereals4

  153

  14

  Beef

  119

  8

  Olive oil

  26

  0

  TOTAL

  298

  22

  Footnotes:

  4 Separate breakdown for wheat not available.

  5 Expenditure charged to the 1988 budget relates to expenditure during the period November 1987 to 15 October 1988.

  Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the research projects currently carried out at his experimental centres at Brogdale, Lizcombe, Luddington and Rosewarne.

  Mr. Ryder
  The following Government-funded R and D projects are currently being carried out, in whole or in part, at the experimental centres indicated.

  Publicly funded projects (whole or part) at Luddington EHS 1989–90

  CP27

  Investigations to assist in the interpretation of data from surveys of pesticide residues in agriculture and horticulture produce

  FNO2

  Container grown nursery stock production

  FNO3

  Field grown nursery stock selection and propagation

  FNO4

  Field grown nursery stock production

  GTO1

  Apples and pears variety trialling

  GTO2

  Apples and pears—production

  GT03

  Plums and cherries variety trialling

  GT04

  Plums and cherries production

  GT05

  Cider apples and other fruit for juicing

  GT10

  Strawberries variety trialling

  GT1I

  Strawberries production

  GT12

  Cane bush and other fruits variety trialling

  613

  GT13

  Cane bush and other fruits production

  GT21

  Fruit, soil management and crop nutrition

  GT22

  Top fruit pest and disease control

  GT23

  Soft fruit control of pests and diseases

  PC02

  Lettuce production and varieties

  PC04

  Tomato production

  VG01

  Brassicas, variety evaluation

  VGO2

  Brassica crop production

  VG05

  Salads, variety evaluation

  VG10

  Alliums, variety evaluation

  VG11

  Albums production

  VG20

  Other vegetables variety evaluation

  VG21

  Other vegetables—crop production

  VG25

  Field vegetable, soil management and nutrition

  VG26

  Field vegetable pest control

  VG29

  To develop improved post harvest handling and storage techniques for minimising wastage and extending market life

  Commercial contract and levy-funded R and D is not included.

  Publicly funded projects (whole or part) at Rosewarne EHS 1989–90

  FN10

  Narcissus variety trialling propagation stock selection and evaluation

  FN11

  Narcissus production

  FN12

  Other bulbs and bulb flowers varieties and propagation

  FN21

  Bulb diseases

  AR01

  Early potatoes-variety testing

  AR03

  Early potatoes-production agronomy

  VG01

  Brassicas, variety evaluation

  VG02

  Brassica crop production

  VG13

  Roots production

  VG25

  Field vegetables, soil management and nutrition

  VG27

  Diseases of field vegetables and their control

  Publicly funded projects (whole or part) at Brogdale EHS 1989–90

  GT01

  Apples and pears variety trialling

  GT02

  Apples and pears—production

  GT03

  Plums and cherries variety trialling

  GT04

  Plums and cherries production

  GT10

  Strawberries variety trialling

  GT11

  Strawberries production

  GTI2

  Cane bush & other fruits variety trialling

  GT13

  Cane bush and other fruits production

  GT21

  Fruit, soil management and crop nutrition

  GT22

  Top fruit pest and disease control

  614

  EC22

  Propagation weaning and growing on farm woodland nursery transplants

  FN01

  Container grown nursery stock selection and propagation

  Publicly funded projects (whole or part) at Liscombe EHF1989–90

  BC02

  Reproduction and rearing of beef cattle

  BC03

  Finishing systems

  EC20

  The establishment and management of small farm woodlands

  BN02

  Evaluation of the resistance to deterioration of alternative floor surface treatments in bunker

  GR02

  Sward establishment and management for grazing and conservation

  GR10

  Grass and forage conservation

  SH01

  Genetics—sheep breeding

  SH02

  Reproduction rearing and the nutrition of the ewe an suckling lamb

  SH03

  Nutrition and management of the weaned lamb

  SH04

  Multicomponent studies housing and handling

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff are currently employed at the Institute of Horticultural Research at Littlehampton; how many staff will be made redundant when the institute closes in three years' time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The complement of full-time staff employed at IHR Littlehampton is 177. There are 33 part-time staff. The number likely to be make redundant when the Littlehampton site closes cannot be forecast but will be kept to a minimum by redeployment of staff between sites in the institutes and elsewhere in the AFRC and by natural wastage in the period until the closure. The timetable for restructuring is still uncertain. A start will depend on extra funding for a building programme and transfer costs and three years will be needed to complete the process.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the projects currently undertaken at the Institute of Horticultural Research at Littlehampton; if he will indicate which projects are due to be relocated when the site is closed in three years' time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The programmes currently undertaken at the AFRC Institute of Horticultural Research, Littlehampton are:

  Energy saving in glasshouses.

  Production systems for protected crops.

  Control of pests and diseases of protected crops.

  Evaluation of biological and other novel methods for pest control.

  Mushrooms.

  Production of ornamental bulbs and corms.

  Control of diseases and pests of ornamental bulbs and corms.

  Development of integrated control techniques for pests of outdoor crops.

  Molecular and cell biology of strategic plant processes.

  Other programmes undertaken jointly at Littlehampton and at the East Mailing and Wellesbourne sites of IHR, are:

  615

  Breeding and selection of hardy ornamental nursery stock.

  Propagation and production of hardy ornamentals. Crop protection of hardy ornamentals.

  Optimum harvesting, storage and marketing conditions for top fruit and soft fruit.

  Horticultural crop improvement by non-conventional methods.

  Physiology and biochemistry of crop development.

  Root development and function.

  Investigation of host/pathogen relationships.

  Development of novel methods of pest and disease control.

  There are also several industrially-supported projects which supplement AFRC funded programmes.

  Under the AFRC's restructuring plan, implementation of which will depend on the extra funding for a building programme and transfer costs, most Littlehampton programmes will be transferred to the principal IHR research station at Wellesbourne.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the projects that are currently undertaken at the North Wyke research station; if he will indicate which projects have been identified as near market and which of these have definite funding from outside bodies and industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Current (1989–90) Programme Funded by MAFF Commissions and if Near Market

  Comparison of the yield potential of permanent grass swards, and re-seeds of contrasting ages. Yes.

  Productivity and clover compatibility of late-maturing tetraploid perennial ryegrass under cutting and grazing. Yes.

  Yield potential of low-input grazing legumes.

  Production and utilisation of grass grown with broad-leaved trees.

  Nitrogen cycling in grazed grassland as influenced by sward composition, fertiliser input and drainage.

  Effects of soil conditions on nutrient availability.

  Fertiliser strategies to reduce leaching losses from grazed grass.

  Establish responses to grazing management with cows grazing permanent grass swards. Yes.

  To improve by supplementation the utilisation of grazed pastures and nutrients derived from them. Yes.

  £000

  Local Authorities

  Yield of Districts Domestic Rates 1988–89

  Yield of Regional Domestic Rates 1988–89

  Total Yield of Domestic Rates 1988–89

  Orkney

  1,258

  1,258

  Shetland

  3,310

  3,310

  Western Isles

  2,576

  2,576

  Berwickshire

  480

  2,323

  2,802

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  919

  3,879

  4,799

  Roxburgh

  1,073

  4,115

  5,189

  Tweeddale

  386

  1,929

  2,314

  Clackmannan

  2,098

  5,687

  7,785

  Falkirk

  5,265

  17,493

  22,758

  Stirling

  5,317

  11,906

  17,224

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,067

  4,359

  5,425

  Nithsdale

  1,697

  6,936

  8,633

  Stewartry

  692

  3,250

  3,942

  Wigtown

  714

  3,569

  4,282

  Dunfermline

  4,114

  17,746

  21,860

  Kirkcaldy

  5,955

  20,470

  26,425

  North East Fife

  2,941

  11,273

  14,215

  Aberdeen City

  8,622

  26,606

  35,228

  Banff and Buchan

  2,356

  8,141

  10,497

  Gordon

  1,869

  8,075

  9,944

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,111

  5,854

  6,966

  Moray

  2,003

  8,240

  10,243

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  240

  1,562

  1,802

  Caithness

  627

  2,608

  3,235

  616

  To develop optimum strategies for low-input beef production on long-term grassland including grass/clover swards.

  The utilisation of grass-white clover swards for milk production.

  Physiology of plant/animal interactions in grazing systems.

  Develop lamb production systems based on long-term grass-white clover swards. Yes.

  None of the near-market identified work has yet been picked up by alternative sponsors.

  Current (1989–90) Contract programmes showing sponsor

  Fertiliser effects on productivity and botanical composition on permanent in Somerset Moors. NCC, MAFF, DOE.

  Forms of phosphate fertiliser for grass-clover swards. Timac.

  Pests and disease control in grassland. Various.

  Effects of fertilisers and other inputs on grass and grass-clover productivity. ICI, Farrant.

SCOTLAND

  Employment Training
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the number of employment training placements in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Of the 23,200 people participating in employment training in Scotland at 30 June 1989, around 19,300 were on placements with employers or on projects.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will produce a table for each district council showing the total yield from the domestic rate payment, excluding domestic water rates, for 1988–89, showing the breakdown of the amounts attributed to district and regions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated figures are given in the table.
  617

  Local Authorities

  Yield of Districts Domestic Rates 1988–89

  Yield of Regional Domestic Rates 1988–89

  Total Yield of Domestic Rates 1988–89

  Inverness

  1,487

  8,139

  9,626

  Lochaber

  607

  2,178

  2,785

  Nairn

  217

  1,412

  1,629

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,310

  5,450

  6,760

  Skye and Lochalsh

  246

  1,065

  1,311

  Sutherland

  238

  1,301

  1,539

  East Lothian

  4,324

  14,599

  18,923

  Edinburgh City

  24,718

  84,960

  109,678

  Midlothian

  3,566

  12,041

  15,608

  West Lothian

  5,340

  20,434

  25,774

  Argyll and Bute

  3,255

  9,764

  13,019

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2,265

  9,931

  12,195

  Clydebank

  2,183

  6,381

  8,564

  Clydesdale

  2,404

  8,181

  10,585

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,567

  8,867

  11,433

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,569

  5,262

  6,831

  Cunninghame

  7,197

  20,012

  27,209

  Dumbarton

  4,286

  12,857

  17,143

  East Kilbride

  3,294

  13,129

  16,423

  Eastwood

  2,378

  13,554

  15,932

  Glasgow City

  46,654

  100,350

  147,003

  Hamilton

  5,001

  15,837

  20,838

  Inverclyde

  4,017

  14,309

  18,326

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,653

  11,255

  14,907

  Kyle and Carrick

  5,751

  19,282

  25,032

  Monklands

  4,528

  14,337

  18,865

  Motherwell

  5,785

  20,292

  26,077

  Renfrew

  9,924

  31,425

  41,349

  Strathkelvin

  3,840

  13,679

  17,519

  Angus

  3,220

  12,402

  15,622

  Dundee City

  10,317

  24,952

  35,269

  Perth and Kinross

  4,775

  17,735

  22,510

  SCOTLAND

  237,603

  731,393

  968,996

  Notes:

  1. Domestic rates are net of domestic rates relief.

  2. The columns may not add due to roundings.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will produce a table for each district council showing the total estimated yield from the community charge and standard community charge, excluding water charges, for 1989–90, showing the breakdown of the amount attributed to district and region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 June,Official Report, Vol. 154, columns 495–98.

  Tourist Board
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consequences are envisaged for the Scottish tourist board as the result of the announcements contained in the reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 6 July,Official Report, column 278; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No changes are envisaged. I am satisfied that the means by which Government support is delivered to the Scottish tourist industry remain relevant and effective.

  Hospital Cars
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of patients living in the Highlands and Islands conveyed to hospital by the 618
  Scottish ambulance service in hospital cars in (a) the eight months prior to August 1988 and (b) the eight months following August 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available on the number of patients conveyed by the hospital car service in the Highlands and Western Isles in 1988 is:

  Number of patients conveyed

  Period

  Number

  22 December 1987—21 March 1988

  3,884

  22 March 1988—21 June 1988

  4,333

  22 June 1988—21 September 1988

  3,636

  22 September 1988—21 December 1988

  2,865

  Total

  14,718

  Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide additional resources to ensure that district councils are able to provide an adequate number of environmental health officers to tackle the health hazards arising from food; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: Local authorities have recieved a generous revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90. They should therefore have adequate scope within available resources to fulfill their responsibilities for environmental health.
  619
  Any future requirement for additional resources can be taken into account in subsequent revenue support grant settlements.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide additional resources to ensure that regional councils are able to provide an adequate number of environmental health officers to tackle the health hazards arising from food; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The provision of environmental health officers is the responsibility of district and islands councils.

  Environmental Health and Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish(a) the number and (b) the cost of local authorities' environmental health and trading standards officers for each financial year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: This information is not held centrally.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and total value of council houses sold by each district council in the year 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The information requested which is available to date is set out in the table:

  Local authority sales to sitting tenants l988–891

  District

  Number of sales

  Value of receipts£000

  SCOTLAND

  24,144

  243,281

  Berwickshire

  120

  1,254

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  159

  1,676

  Roxburgh

  219

  2,261

  Tweeddale2

  27

  307

  Clackmannan

  356

  3,568

  Falkirk

  1,252

  12,416

  Stirling

  457

  4,729

  Annandale and Eskdale

  177

  1,933

  Nithsdale

  417

  3,951

  Stewartry

  86

  861

  Wigtown

  132

  1,273

  Dunfermline

  819

  7,631

  Kirkcaldy

  778

  6,761

  North East Fife

  316

  3,372

  Aberdeen

  643

  8,290

  Banff and Buchan

  322

  3,641

  Gordon

  78

  1,075

  Kincardine and Deeside

  61

  851

  Moray

  372

  4,331

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  53

  627

  Caithness

  93

  935

  Inverness

  169

  1,997

  Lochaber

  116

  1,391

  Nairn

  21

  247

  Ross and Cromarty2

  82

  984

  Skye and Lochalsh

  27

  338

  Sutherland2

  30

  319

  East Lothian

  647

  7,868

  Edinburgh

  2,411

  22,396

  Midlothian

  570

  7,144

  620

  District

  Number of sales

  Value of receipts£000

  West Lothian

  629

  6,297

  Argyll and Bute

  139

  1,524

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  51

  616

  Clydebank

  468

  4,071

  Clydesdale

  363

  3,777

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  187

  1,835

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  n/a

  n/a

  Cunninghame

  789

  7,686

  Dumbarton

  383

  3,558

  East Kilbride

  85

  923

  Eastwood

  78

  866

  Glasgow

  3,189

  28,742

  Hamilton

  758

  7,856

  Inverclyde

  263

  2,455

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  568

  5,421

  Kyle and Carrick

  775

  7,962

  Monklands

  n/a

  n/a

  Motherwell

  844

  9,082

  Renfrew

  1,295

  13,248

  Strathkclvin

  477

  5,356

  Angus

  386

  4,123

  Dundee

  812

  6,786

  Perth and Kinross

  469

  5,198

  Orkney Islands

  53

  592

  Shetland Islands

  44

  595

  Western Isles

  29

  283

  1 Only sales for which complete information is available are included.

  2 Returns for question 1 1989 not included.

  n/a No returns available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are in receipt of both the basic state pension and housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 31 May 1989, the number of claimants in receipt of housing benefit, with either the claimant or the claimant's partner, or both being in receipt of basic state pension, was 2·8 million.

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry 1988.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are in receipt of both the basic state pension and income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Latest estimates indicate that the number of claimants in receipt of income support, with either the claimant or the claimant's partner, or both, being in receipt of basic state pension, is 1·61 million.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are in receipt of both the basic state pension and family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 31 May 1989 approximately 2,000 women aged 60 and over were in receipt of family credit. Information relating to individuals in receipt of both family credit and the basic state pension is not available.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each of the last three years(a) the number of people receiving attendance allowance, (b)

  621
  the number awarded the allowance in that year and (c) the number who lost the allowance because of death or recovery.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 13 June at columns 387–88.

  Single Parent Families
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the various measures taken since 1986 to assist single parent families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The needs of lone parents were recognised in the social security reforms introduced last year. As well as the family premium, income support and housing benefit have a lone parent premium. In family credit the adult rate for married couples also applies to lone parents. From April families with children who receive income-related benefit had increases over and above those needed to restore their real value of 50p a child.

  Unmarried mothers seeking maintenance will also benefit from changes made by the Family Law Reform Act.

  Disability
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to act on the evidence of the recently published surveys of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to improve the lot of disabled people by uprating, extending and improving access to disability benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 3 July at column 2.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to lay the regulations on community charge rebates before the House.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We intend to lay the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989 once the Social Security Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Income Support
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will commission research into the amount of money spent by recipients of income support on food.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the amounts spent on food by different groups—including recipients of income support—is already collected as part of the family expenditure survey.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been(a) the total number of claims for family credit and (b) the number of claims assessed as eligible for payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to and including 7 July 1989, 1,028,536 claims for family credit had been received and 622
  610,487 awards had been made. The total number of claims received includes 48,853 which were either subsequently withdrawn, or were invalid because they were made more than four weeks before the expiry of an existing award. At 7 July 1989, 86,440 claims were still being processed.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the expenditure to date on the publicity campaign to re-launch family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 30 June expenditure on paid advertising was £3·7 million and £1·1 million on other promotion and marketing costs, mostly printing and postage.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claims for family credit have been assessed as ineligible for payment in each month since April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The percentage of valid claims dealt with in each month which were unsuccessful is as follows:

  Percentage

  1988

  April

  32·0

  May

  June

  27·0

  July

  27·8

  August

  27·0

  September

  26·4

  October

  24·9

  November

  24·8

  December

  26·1

  1989

  January

  26·9

  February

  25·6

  March

  24·4

  April

  26·2

  May

  48·8

  June

  44·8

  Valid claims exclude those withdrawn and those made more than four weeks before the expiry of an existing award.

  Mental Illness (Services)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in the light of his statement of 12 July on community care, what plans he has to improve health services for the mentally ill.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I welcome the opportunity to outline Government policy towards the care in the community of the mentally ill and to indicate the initiatives that we propose to take to improve these services in England. These will, of course, be included in the White Paper on community care to be published this autumn which will set out the finer detail where necessary.

  Until the 1960s there was little alternative for those suffering from serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia to prolonged in-patient care in one of the large and often remote mental hospitals. Scientific advances in the 1950s, particularly the discovery that the symptoms of schizophrenia could often be relieved by drugs, together with the development of community psychiatric services, opened up the possibility that many sufferers could be

  623
  treated on a largely out-patient basis. The vision of a new pattern of services on this basis, reflecting an already occurring fall in the number of hospital beds, and anticipating a further fall, was outlined by the then Minister of Health, Mr. Enoch Powell, in 1961. It was turned into detailed policy under Sir Keith Joseph in the early 1970s, though the White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Ill"—was actually published in 1975.

  The policy as stated in that White Paper, the development of locally-based hospital and community services, including facilities providing long term asylum for those who need it, and as a consequence the closure of very large mental hospitals, has remained essentially unchanged since, supported by successive Governments. It is founded on scientific and therapeutic advances, and the knowledge that, with the right supporting services, many sufferers can live fuller lives in the community than in institutions.

  In our view, this long-standing policy is a civilised and humanitarian one which has benefited many patients who, otherwise, would have been destined to spend their lives in large isolated hospitals. It has also inspired many caring people to work in the psychiatric services. We know it can work. We have examples of services such as those in Buckingham and Hackney, which show what can be done through prevention, early intervention and well coordinated care at home working closely with family doctors. I am glad today to be able to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the policy, and our determination to ensure that it is properly implemented. There is no going back to the days when health service care for the mentally ill invariably meant long term institutional care.

  Although there are some who question the policy itself, most concerns are about implementation: the pervasive sense that all too often community care means no care: that insufficient resources have been put in place to provide effective alternatives to the old hospitals, where bed numbers have fallen substantially. I would make two points about this.

  While we accept that there are deficiencies, it would be wrong to minimise the substantial shift of resources from hospital in-patient provision to community-based services provided by health and local authorities. Over the last ten years for which information is available (1977 to 1987), the number of places for people with a mental illness in local authority, voluntary and private residential homes almost doubled (to 9,000) and there was a 50 per cent. increase in day centre places (to 6,000). On the health service side there has been a 44 per cent. growth in day hospital places (to 19,000) over the same period; the number of community psychiatric nurses has more than doubled since 1981, and it is estimated that the number of districts with a community mental health centre has doubled every two years throughout the 1980s.

  We made quite explicit in last year's guidance to the National Health Service what has always been the intention: that hospitals should close only when proper alternative locally based services were available. When the Secretary of State discussed this issue yesterday with the chairmen of the regional health authorities he made it clear that he will not approve the closure of any mental hospital unless he is satisfied that proper alternative services are in place. This coupled with the requirement to introduce care programmes in 1991, means that no patient will be
  624
  discharged from hospital without proper consideration of his or her need for continuing care and where needs are identified, plans to meet them.

  Over the last few months we have been working, and will continue to work, collaboratively with individual regional health authorities to identify the progress that has been made and the problems that have been encountered. Our purpose is not to recriminate over any inadequacies in the past, but to identify what we at the centre need to do to help health authorities implement policy effectively. It is through this work, and discussions with the social services inspectorate and voluntary organisations, that we are building up a region-by-region picture of progress and problems, and I expect to have this around the turn of the year.

  To enhance our capacity to undertake this work we have secured the services at the Department of one of the few general managers in the country with experience of developing locally based services and closing a major hospital. Mr. John Jenkins, who played a leading role in the development of services in Exeter and Torbay and the closure of Exminster hospital will be working with us in an advisory capacity from next Monday, and will play a key role in our collaborative work with regional health authorities and the development of any further initiatives or guidance that seem necessary.

  I would now like to outline a number of specific policy steps. The first is guidance to health authorities on care programmes. Much concern has been expressed about the adequacy of continuing health service care for psychiatric patients discharged from hospital. Last year, through a health circular, a requirement was placed on district health authorities to initiate, by 31 March 1991, explicit individually tailored programmes for continuing health service care for all such patients. Later this month we will be formally consulting on guidance to authorities on developing these care programmes, which will emphasise the need for locally developed approaches including local registers of vulnerable discharged patients and regular reviews of their needs. We expect to publish the definitive guidance in the autumn. In addition, and we greatly welcome this, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has agreed to draw up minimum acceptable professional standards for assessing patients prior to discharge, and for follow up after discharge. A preliminary statement of good practice is expected from the college in late summer, to be followed by a more substantive one developed in concert with the other professions concerned. These two initiatives will, together, provide much clearer guidance on good practice than currently exists.

  As part of our 1990–91 research programme, we plan to commission research which will assist us to evaluate the effectiveness of the care programme initiative.

  The second is guidance on compulsory admission to hospital. Another area of current concern is in relation to arrangements for compulsory admission to hospital, and the related issue of compulsory treatment in the community.

  On hospital admissions, there seems to be wide agreement that the law is adequate, but concern that its interpretation by practitioners is sometimes not. We believe that these problems will be much reduced once the code of practice for admitting and treating patients compulsorily required under the 1983 Mental Health Act is available. In April we set up an expert group under the chairmanship of Mr. James Collier, with Mr. William

  625
  Bingley, on secondment from MIND to whom we are indebted, as the full-time executive secretary. Work is well advanced, and the code will be laid before the House this autumn.

  We understand that in due course the Royal College of Psychiatrists will be giving us its views on the possible role of new legal powers to ensure compulsory treatment in the community. We will then explore this issue with all the interested parties involved. Without prejudicing the discussion, we would need to be very clear both of the benefits, and that they could not be achieved through voluntary means, before seriously considering asking Parliament to create provision for compulsory treatment in the community.

  The third is health service resources. Although the issues that I have already referred to are important, we fully understand that underlying much of the current concern is the question of resources. Finance from mental hospital sites provides valuable capital for replacement facilities, but these facilities are needed before hospitals can be vacated. They in turn have to compete for resources with other priorities within capital programmes, and this may hold up the whole process. Existing arrangements offer one way of addressing this problem—with regions lending each other capital to match the timing of planned new developments. Another possible solution is for authorities to enter into agreements with developers to upgrade, purchase and build community facilities for the mentally ill, in return for which they would receive all or part of the vacated site. We plan to invite health authorities to identify sites where this approach would be suitable: the aim will be to bring about the degree of private sector involvement that maximises value for money.

  We do understand the revenue burden of keeping open old hospitals which will close and new replacement facilities already open. Clearly the quicker older facilities can be closed the lesser the burden of double running and running inefficient emptying facilities.

  The fourth is local authority resources. Proper social care for the mentally ill in the community is vital. Yesterday the Government confirmed that local authorities would continue to be responsible for the social care of the mentally ill and announced that from 1991 we would be instituting a new, specific grant to local authorities to encourage them to make the necessary contribution to the services required. To encourage joint planning of services, and proper collaboration in relation to care programmes, we are making this grant payable through health authorities as the Secretary of State's agent, on the basis of agreed plans. Further details will be set out in the White Paper on community care, to be published this autumn.

  The fifth is quality of services. We are very concerned that the new hospital and community facilities that are developing should provide a good quality service. In the wake of scandals about the conditions in some mental hospitals in the 1960s and early 1970s, the health advisory service was established, to keep a watch on standards and encourage better services. I think that it is generally agreed that, over the years the HAS has been successful. We are now examining its work to identify how it might be done even more effectively, and in a way even more relevant to the NHS as it will develop following "Working for Patients".

  The sixth is the contribution of the voluntary sector. We believe that a lot can be done, through Departmental
  626
  grants to voluntary organisations, to increase the information, services and mutual help available to the parents and friends of patients. Current grants to voluntary organisations in the mental health field, including mental handicap, are being reviewed with a view to ensuring that we use the nearly £2½ million a year that we allocate in a way which best supports patients and their relatives and encourages new initiatives which are of clear and direct benefit.

  There are some areas we need to explore more fully as a matter of urgency. I would like to refer to some of the issues that we are aware are causing concerns that we are beginning to address, and on which work will be undertaken in the course of the next year or so.

  First, the need to improve the ability of general practitioners and others to prevent, detect and treat mental illness. The first of a series of departmentally sponsored conferences on these themes was held in May; others are planned for the autumn and next spring. In the light of these discussions we will be considering what practical initiatives need to be taken;

  Secondly, the need to provide appropriate services for those among the homeless population who suffer from mental illness. The incidence of mental illness among homeless and destitute men and women in London and other cities has been linked by some to the fall in the number of hospital beds. Research funded by the Department shows that, most commonly, homeless mentally ill people have had care organised outside hospital but have lost touch with the service. We expect to reduce the future numbers losing touch through the measures to which I have already referred. But we need to address the existing problem, and will be doing so in the light of a recent study by the Policy Studies Institute, again funded by the Department, on schemes for delivering primary health care to single homeless people;

  Third, the need for adequate arrangements in each health district for emergency care of people suffering from mental illness. In some places this is handled through the normal accident and emergency service; in others by specialist mental health emergency arrangements. We will be discovering the extent of arrangements and seeking to evaluate alternatives.

  Finally, let me summarise what we are announcing at this stage.
  We reaffirm our commitment to the longstanding policy of locally based hospital and community services, including asylum;
  working collaboratively with the regional health authorities, we will ensure that hospitals are not closed before proper alternative provision is made;
  from 1991, we will require district health authorities to have care programmes for those discharged from hospital, upon which we will be issuing guidance, and we propose a new specific grant to local authorities, payable through health authorities, to help meet the social care needs of such patients;
  we are offering health authorities the possibility of, in effect, bringing forward the sale of hospital sites, to fund new facilities such as hospital hostels;
  we propose this autumn to lay before the House a code of practice for the compulsory assessment and treatment of patients suffering from mental disorder in hospital, and will consider, though from a very questioning standpoint, the possibility of new legislation for compulsory treatment in the community;
  we are reviewing the work of the health advisory service, to ensure effective oversight of the quality of locally-based services;

  627
  we are reviewing our funding of voluntary bodies, to ensure that public funds are used in the most effective way to encourage the development and provision of services for patients and their relatives:
  we are looking at ways of increasing general practitioners' awareness of mental illness and how it can be treated; the extent and adequacy of emergency services for people with a mental illness, and what can be done to meet the needs of those members of the homeless population in London and elsewhere suffering from mental illness.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many admitted full ownership claims were in the pipeline at the end of the last quarter for which information is available.

  Mr. Trippier
  About two thirds of the local authorities in England have submitted returns for the period ending 31 March 1989; the total of pipeline figures for these authorities was some 112,000.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discharges of toxic waste currently take place into the North sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Toxic wastes are discharged into the North sea via two main routes: direct discharge by pipe from land-based sources and riverine inputs from direct discharges to rivers. Wastes also enter the North sea from dumping and incineration at sea and general atmospheric deposition. The 1987 quality status report on the North sea confirms that most of the pollution in the North sea comes from rivers.

  The combined effect of all United Kingdom rivers flowing into the North sea contributes about 20 per cent. of riverborne pollutants, although the United Kingdom has almost half the North sea coastline. The Rhine and Meuse alone contribute between 40 and 50 per cent. of pollutants carried by rivers.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce poll tax rebates for those who care for the elderly within the family home.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  People caring for the elderly within the family home may, depending upon their incomes, be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge, and if they are in receipt of income support, will have an amount reflected in their income support to help with the remaining 20 per cent.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the event of planning appeals arising out of the refusal of local authorities to grant planning consent for municipal, chemical or hospital waste incinerators, he will make it his policy to take into account 628
  local public concern over such proposals and the findings of the interdepartmental working group report "Dioxins in the Environment", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 requires those who decide planning applications to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. My right hon. Friend and his planning inspectors are subject to the same requirement in relation to appeals. Accordingly, in deciding planning appeals inspectors can take account of a wide range of evidence, including expressions of local opinion, providing it relates to material land-use planning considerations.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of the recent report from the interdepartmental working group on polychlorinated dibenzo-par-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo-furans entitled "Dioxins in the Environment", he will now consider introducing stricter planning and operational controls on municipal, chemical and hospital waste incinerators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On planning controls I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his earlier question today.

  As for operational controls, new regulations came into effect on 31 March this year bringing all incinerators capable of burning waste at a rate of 1 tonne per hour or more under the control of the national air pollution inspectorates. These inspectorates already controlled all chemical waste incinerators. We have recently agreed within the European Community two directives on prevention of air pollution from new and existing municipal waste incinerators. These directives specify combustion conditions which take particular account of the need to minimise emissions of dioxins and furans. The Department has also recently drawn up, in consultation with the Department of Health, draft guidance on incineration of clinical waste which includes combustion conditions designed to minimise dioxin and furan emissions.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will tabulate what a typical married couple with two children and one wage earner living in the London borough of Waltham Forest would pay(a) in community charge and (b) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in proportions of 80:20, respectively, if the wage earner earned (a) £60,000, (b) £90,000 and (c) £120,000 and lived in (i) property owned by that wage earner worth £90,000 and (ii) property owned by that wage earner worth £120,000 and (iii) property owned by that wage earner worth £150,000, making the same assumptions as in his reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 22 March, Official Report, column 626.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is provided in the table.
  629

  Illustrative annual liability in Waltham Forest under a system of capital value rates combined with local income tax, 1988–89

  Earnings

  Property value

  Property value

  Property value

  £90,000

  £120,000

  £150,000

  (a)£60,000

  £1,635

  £1,915

  £2,200

  (b)£90,000

  £2,060

  £2,345

  £2,625

  (c) £120,000

  £2,490

  £2,770

  £3,050

  The figures are based on illustrative tax rates placed in the Library on 23 June 1988 and are for 1988–89. Taxable income is taken as earnings less £4,095, the married man's allowance, in each case. The illustrative 1988–89 community charge in Waltham Forest is £269.

  Gasoline
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the need to set seasonal Reid vapour pressure limits for gasoline.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Evaporative emissions from gasoline are of interest because of the role they play in the generation of secondary air pollutants, including ozone. A study carried out for the Department by the Harwell

  Planning applications decided, by each planning authority in Staffordshire, and England—July to September 1988

  Planning authority

  Total decided

  Under 8 weeks

  Per cent.

  Between 8–13 weeks

  Per cent.

  Over 13 weeks

  Per cent.

  Cannock Chase

  257

  210

  (82)

  27

  (10)

  20

  (8)

  East Staffordshire

  389

  320

  (82)

  53

  (14)

  16

  (4)

  Lichfield

  337

  223

  (66)

  85

  (25)

  29

  (9)

  Newcastle under Lyme

  347

  321

  (92)

  20

  (6)

  6

  (2)

  South Staffordshire

  327

  156

  (48)

  136

  (41)

  35

  (11)

  Stafford

  389

  304

  (78)

  62

  (16)

  23

  (6)

  Staffordshire Moorland

  282

  156

  (55)

  66

  (24)

  60

  (21)

  Stoke on Trent

  423

  295

  (70)

  105

  (25)

  23

  (5)

  Tamworth

  326

  251

  (77)

  46

  (14)

  29

  (9)

  Peak Park (Staffs section)

  41

  13

  (32)

  16

  (39)

  12

  (29)

  England

  164,044

  85,680

  (52)

  48,172

  (29)

  30,192

  (19)

  Litter
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of litter at Victoria station.

  Mrs. Virgina Bottomley
  None. However, we have received a large number of representations on litter in public areas generally, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly announce proposals for legislation designd to tackle this problem.

  Water Authorities (Debt Write-Offs)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the proposed debt write-offs for each regional water authority; and what is the expected remaining debt in each case.

  Mr. Howard
  It is too early to say. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on 18 May,Official Report, Vol. 153, column 268.

  Dogs
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about dog licensing; and if he will make a statement.
  630
  laboratory concludes that further controls on Reid vapour pressure would have an insignificant impact on the formation of secondary pollutants.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many planning applications were decided(a) in under eight weeks; (b) between eight and 13 weeks; and (c) in over 13 weeks by each planning authority in Staffordshire in the most recent period for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of planning applications were decided (a) in under eight weeks; (b) between eight and 13 weeks; and (c) in over 13 weeks by each planning authority in Staffordshire in the most recent period for which figures are available; and what is the comparable figure for England as a whole.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested on planning decisions made by each planning authority in Staffordshire together with the comparable figure for England is listed in the table:

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Wednesday 28 June 1989 to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner),Official Report, Vol. 155, column 479.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to compel district councils to arrange to round up stray dogs, to advertise for their owners and, after a limited time, either offer those dogs to good homes or arrange for the unclaimed dogs to be put down.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 14 June proposals for giving local authorities new duties and powers for dealing with stray dogs. We will be issuing a consultation paper on these proposals shortly.

  Beaches
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which beaches along the south Wales coastline between Cardiff and the Gover peninsular conform to the water quality standards of Economic Community bathing water directive 76/160/EEC; and what consideration he has given to the merits of existing and proposed screened sewage outfalls along this coastline.
  631
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have been asked to reply. Information about bathing waters listed under the directive is as follows:

  Trecco bay, Porthcawl

  Rest bay, Porthcawl

  Aberavon

  My Department does not hold information on non-listed waters; I refer my hon. Friend to the chairman of Welsh Water.

  My officials are in touch with Welsh Water about its capital programme of improvements for bringing outfalls along this coastline to such standards as will permit listed bathing waters to comply with the terms of directive 76/160/EEC.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which beaches on the south Wales coastline within 10 miles of Swansea attain the standards required under European Economic Community bathing water directive 76/160/EEC.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have been asked to reply.

  All bathing waters within 10 miles of Swansea which are listed under the terms of the directive, with the exception of Swansea bay itself, complied with its standards during 1988.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) by how much the safety net grant of gaining authorities is reduced from when there is no limit where the maximum contribution to the community charge safety net is(a) £75 per adult, (b) £70 per adult, (c) £50 per adult, (d) £25 per adult, and (e) £10 per adult, on the assumption of a self-financing safety net;

  (2) how much additional Exchequer grant would be required if the maximum contribution were to be (a) £70 per adult, (b) £50 per adult, (c) £25 per adult and (d) £10 per adult on the assumption of no reduction in the community charge safety net grant to local authorities gaining from the safety net.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is provided in the table on the basis of 1988–89 figures. If the cost of limiting contributions to the safety net were funded by Exchequer grants it would be as shown in column I. Alternatively, safety net grant receipts could be reduced by an equal amount per adult in receiving areas up to the point at which they no longer receive transitional protection. The maximum reduction in safety net grant per adult is shown in column 2.

  Cost in 1988–89 of limits on contributions to safety nets

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Contribution limit

  cost

  Maximum cost

  £

  £million

  £per adult

  75

  114

  8

  70

  134

  9

  50

  254

  18

  25

  529

  48

  10

  769

  114

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, for which of the following charges in local authority functions or duties the community charge safety net will make distributional adjustments(a) ring fencing of the housing revenue account, (b) abolition of the Inner
  632
  London education authority, (c) capital financing charges consequent on the new capital control system, (d) pension contributions consequent on the charges being proposed, (e) costs of community charge collection, (f) costs of community charge rebate and rebate administration and (g) continuing costs of maintaining the community charge register.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend has not taken final decisions on the safety net.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has identified all the possible options for needs assessments under the new grant system; and if he will make a statement on which he proposes to adopt.

  Mr. Gummer
  We are examining a number of possibilities for each service block, including those proposed by the local authority associations. Proposals will not be finalised until the autumn.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the level of community charge for spending at needs assessment for each local authority which would apply in 1989–90 if the proposed local government finance system were in operation; and what assumptions are made to arrive at that answer.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of Monday 26 June, Official Report, Vol. 155, col. 347.

  The detailed assumptions underlying that answer were:

  £ million

  Total GRE

  27,662

  Revenue support grant

  9,394

  Non domestic rate pool

  9,516

  Total adult population

  36·4

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanisms he intends to use for safety-netting the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend has not made final decisions on the form of the safety net.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had so far with local authorities and industry for the safe recovery and recycling of chlorofluorocarbons contained in discarded refrigerants in relation to Her Majesty's Government's objectives for the protection of the ozone layer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has regular meetings with local authorities and industry at which these matters are discussed. United Kingdom CFC manufacturers, a number of local authorities and at least one retailer of domestic refrigerators and freezers offer recycling services for used refrigerators free of charge.

  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans exist to ensure the safe disposal of both chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant material and chlorofluorocarbon II in the foam in refrigeration and air-cooling equipment under the control of his Department.
  633
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidelines issued by the Property Services Agency contain advice on the use of CFCs on the Government estate. They insist that at the end of its useful operational life, the refrigerant in commercial or industrial equipment is to be recovered by the PSA or contractors and returned to the refrigerant supplier for reclamation or safe disposal. We do not yet know of a proven technique for the extraction of the CFCs in the insulation.

  Regional Water Authorities
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the remuneration for each of the board members of the regional water authorities after vesting, along with any other benefits to be given.

  Mr. Ridley
  Under the Water Act 1989 all current appointments to water authority boards will end at vesting. Executive and non-executive directors of the successor companies will be appointed at vesting and through to flotation on essentially their existing terms and conditions as water authority board members or officers. Remuneration following flotation will be a matter for the companies themselves.

  Water Filter Industry
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what correspondence, discussions, or meetings he has had with the advertising standards authority regarding advertising by the water filter industry.

  Mr. Ridley
  None.

  OFWAT
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is to be any increase in the number of staff of OFWAT above that which was originally projected.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. The complement for the office of water services will be about 100. The director general's duties have been added to since the number of about 80 was given in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Water Bill last November.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what obligations there are on statutory water companies to disclose information about their structure, finances and activities; and what are the comparable obligations of private limited companies.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: The requirements for disclosure of information about the structure, finances and activities of the statutory water companies are set out in their local statutes and company legislation; and the requirements for private companies are set out in company legislation.

  National Exhibition Centre
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes replying to the letters of 7 April and 26 May from the chief executive of Birmingham 634
  city council, concerning the impact on the national exhibition centre of the capital control proposals contained in the Local Government and Housing Bill.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government wrote to the leader of Birmingham city council and Councillor Reg Hales about the national exhibition centre on 10 April, and I replied to their latest letters, of 26 May and 7 July, on 11 July.

  Radioactive Liquid Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites in England are authorised to discharge radioactive liquid waste to the public sewer.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: There are 808 premises in England which are currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to discharge liquid radioactive waste. the authorisations prescribe discharges into drainage systems, which include public sewers. All authorisations contain strict conditions, including the quantities of radioactive liquid that may be discharged.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drugs
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards further bilateral treaties to provide for the confiscation of the assets of drug traffickers.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have this week agreed on the need for early progress towards a confiscation agreement with the Interior Minister of Pakistan. We have already signed bilateral agreements with the United States of America, Canada, the Bahamas, Australia, Switzerland and, in the last few weeks, Spain, and have concluded similar arrangements with Bermuda. Discussions are also in progress with West Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Jamaica, Malaysia, Sweden andGuyana, and we expect further agreements soon.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking against the threat to this country from cocaine and crack.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 15 June 1989 at column 1113.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seizures of cocaine have been made in the Merseyside area this year; and in how many cases crack was found to be present.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Merseyside police have made eight seizures of cocaine in the period January-May 1989. One of these seizures has been confirmed as being in the form of crack.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs.
  635
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) on 21 April at column 517. The ministerial group is next due to meet on 26 July, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend, when particular attention will be given to the threat to this country from cocaine and crack.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about drug abuse among young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive a steady stream of representations from hon. Members and members of the public about drug abuse among young people. We take a very serious view of the problem of drug misuse and have developed a comprehensive strategy set out in "Tackling Drug Misuse" a copy of which is in the Library. A number of measures under the strategy—for example, drug education in schools—are aimed specifically at young people.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking to enhance international co-operation in respect of the trafficking in drugs in the light of the forthcoming European single market.

  Mr. Hurd
  In my contacts with our European partners I stress the need for early ratification by all countries of the 1988 United Nations convention against the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. We shall maintain the frontier checks necessary to control drug trafficking and promote closer international co-operation between law enforcement agencies.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed joint crime prevention initiatives with the local authority associations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is regular consultation between Home Office officials and local authority representatives on a wide range of issues including crime prevention. This will continue.

  North America (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the visit to North America by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  Mr. Hurd
  My hon. Friend's recent valuable visit to the United States and the Bahamas provided graphic evidence of the destructive effects on individuals and the community of widespread misuse of and trafficking in cocaine and crack. He studied both means of enforcement and of reducing demand. We already have in place a comprehensive strategy for tackling misuse. The ministerial group on the misuse of drugs is considering urgently how this strategy can be strengthened and extended.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about entry into the United Kingdom of citizens from Hong Kong in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Within the last two months some 40 letters have been received in the Home Office from right hon. and hon. Members and from members of the public.

  Inquests
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of a death of a patient on National Health Service premises in the past three years an inquest has been refused when it has been recommended by a coroner.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Secretary has power to order an inquest only if a coroner applies in the absence of a body. There was one application in this period for a death on National Health Service premises. It was concerned with the abortion in Carlisle City general hospital in July 1987.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to Comunn Na Gaidhlig's submission on Gaelic broadcasting.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to Comunn Na Gaidhlig's submission on Gaelic broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  We are considering the proposals submitted by Comunn Na Gaidhlig on this subject.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any progress to report on provision for Gaelic broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to questions from the hon. Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached on the future of broadcasting in Gaelic.

  Mr. Renton
  No conclusions have been reached at this stage as we have yet to complete our consideration of the proposals submitted to us on this subject.

  Burglary
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for burglary in England and Wales.

  Mr. Hurd
  There were 801,500 burglaries in the 12 months to March 1989 compared to 886,400 for the previous 12 months, a decrease of almost 85,000 or 10 per cent. This information is published in table 4 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 20/89, a copy of which is in the Library.
  637
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to reduce burglary in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  In their bid to reduce crime, of which burglary is a major element, the Government have increased police manpower by 14,138 and civilian manpower by 8,137 since 1979. The Government are also convinced of the importance of community involvement in tackling crime. That is why we have encouraged neighbourhood watch schemes which can do much to prevent crime. There are now over 66,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales covering approximately 3¼ million households. In addition there are 390 crime prevention panels and 165 junior panels which are active in spreading the crime prevention message. In the 12 months to March 1989 burglaries have fallen by 10 per cent. compared with the 12 months to March 1988.

  We are constantly looking at new initiatives in our effort to combat crime. One such initiative is the safer cities programme which is the Home Office contribution to the Government's action for cities strategy. We have also launched Crime Concern, an independent organisation, whose efforts are directed at the reduction of crime.

  Nazi War Criminals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received in the month of June regarding Nazi war criminals in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  During June I received 20 representations and one parliamentary petition on the subject of war criminals in the United Kingdom.

  Television Franchises
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers the Independent Television Commission will have to ensure that individuals found to be unfit to hold a television broadcasting licence in other countries, are prevented from involvement in television companies and channels in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced further proposals to limit broadcasting ownership on 19 May at column 317. We are considering further the detail of the enforcement powers which the ITC and radio authority will need. We envisage that, in exercising them, they will reach their own decisions rather than necessarily following those reached by regulatory bodies in other jurisdictions.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations supporting his policy that television franchises be auctioned.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received a number of submissions supporting the principle of competitive tender for the award of licences for commercial television and radio.

  Fresh Start
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the staffing levels in top security prisons following the implementation of fresh start.
  638
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As at 1 June 1989 the number of officers (including principal and senior officers) in dispersal prisons was 9 per cent. higher than two years previously when none of the establishments had moved to fresh start working.

  Murderers (Release)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have died over the past 25 years at the hands of previously convicted killers; and what was the average length of sentence served by murderers released from prison over the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the number of suspects convicted of homicide who had previous homicide convictions is published annually in Criminal statistics, England and Wales (tables 4.9 and 4.10 of the latest issue, for 1987, Cm. 498), copies of which are in the Library.

  During the 25 year period 1963–87, 51 persons in England and Wales were killed by persons previously convicted of homicide.

  Average times served by sentenced murderers released on licence from prison service establishments are given in the table. The average figures do not take account of the longest periods being served by some of those given life sentences following the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 who have not yet been released. They also exclude persons who have died in custody or been discharged for other reasons.

  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that those convicted of the most heinous murders can normally expect to service at least 20 years in prison and in some cases even longer; and no life sentence prisoner is released, no matter how long he or she has served, unless my right hon. Friend is personally as satisfied as it is reasonably possible to be that there is no risk to the community.

  Average time1 spent under sentence in prison service establishments in England and Wales by prisoners first released in 1984–88 on licence from a life sentence for murder

  Year of release

  Average years2 under life sentence

  1984

  10·50

  1985

  10·25

  1986

  11·00

  1987

  11·50

  1988

  10·00

  1 Excluding any time spent on remand in custody.

  2 Estimates rounded to the nearest quarter.

  Blasphemy
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Law Commission recommendation regarding the law of blasphemy.

  Mr. Hurd
  In its 1985 report on offences against religion and public worship, the Law Commission recommended —by a majority—that common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be abolished and not replaced. A minority proposed in a note of dissent the creation of a new statutory offence of blasphemy applying to all religions. The Government have no plans to legislate on blasphemy.

  Border Controls
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to dismantle completely border controls between Britain and other European Community countries.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 14 December 1988 at cols 576–7. That essentially remains the position, and it was last extensively discussed in this House on 4 May at columns 395–417.

  Arwen Ace Gun (Police)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to acquire the baton round gun Arwen Ace for police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 April at columns 707–81.

  Bill of Rights
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans for introducing a Bill of Rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Press Law Review
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference of the independent press law review group which he announced on 21 April.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on 5 July 1989 at column 193.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to reduce car crime in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 15 June at column 510.

  It is encouraging that in the 12 months ending March 1989 recorded offences of theft from vehicles fell by 9 per cent. compared to the corresponding period last year, and offences of theft or unauthorised taking of a vehicle fell by 6 per cent.

  Rural Violence
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in his Department's recent report on rural violence.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have strengthened the law on sales of alcohol to underage drinkers and increased the penalties available to the courts. We have issued advice to the police and courts about powers available to deal with outbreaks 640
  of disorder. We have encouraged the drinks industry to increase the production and promotion of low and no alcohol drinks. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as chairman of the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, together with my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Home Department will shortly meet representatives of the drinks, fast food and leisure industries and the licensed trade to discuss other matters raised by the report. These moves by the Government need to be backed up by local action, with local organisations working together to identify any particular problems in their areas and the steps which might be taken. The need for such co-operation was spelt out in inter-Departmental guidance issued in February, which gave advice about local action to tackle all forms of alcohol misuse.

  Police Forces (Merger)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if consideration is being given to merging any shire police forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to create new combined police forces. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Rydale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 11 May at column 529.

  Safer Cities Initiative
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the safer cities initiative.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on 11 July at column 421.

  Crime
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the measures which his Department is taking to reduce crime in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on I I May at columns 543 and 544.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the most recent available figures for recorded crime in West Sussex.

  Mr. Hurd
  The available information relates to the police force area of Sussex. Information for 1988 was published in tables 7 and 8 of "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/89", a copy of which is in the Library. I have also sent some further details of the figures for 1988 for their local force area to all right hon. and hon. Members for constituencies in England and Wales and placed copies of those further details in the Library. In the first quarter of 1989 Sussex police recorded 4 per cent. more offences than in the first quarter of 1988.

  Welsh Television Channels
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of people living in north Wales who cannot receive Welsh television channels.
  641
  Mr. Renton
  I understand that about 15,650 people living in North Wales are unable to receive Welsh language television programmes because of mountainous terrain and shortage of frequencies. There are, however, plans to extend coverage to a further 1,000 people in the Gronant area.

  Mugging
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to reduce the number of muggings in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 15 June at column 507.

  Punishment (Community)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement about his policy with regard to punishment in the community.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community" (Cm. 424) described the policies we are pursuing and our proposals for future changes. We are at present considering how best to take these forward.

  Prisons
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional prison places have become available since 1979; how many additional places are expected to be provided this year; and how many additional places are expected to become available in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since 1979 more than 6,000 new places have been added to the prison estate, over half of which have been provided at the eight new prisons which have opened since 1985. The first phase of a new prison for 350 prisoners has recently opened in converted buildings at Banstead in Surrey, and by the end of the financial year it is planned that a total of nearly 2,000 new places will have been added to the estate.

  Through a combination of more new prisons, additions to existing prisons and redevelopment and place producing schemes, about 17,000 new places will also be delivered between the end of this financial year and the mid-1990s. By that time a total of about 25,000 places will have been added to the system.

  Police Co-operation
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making in fostering greater co-operation between British police forces and their counterparts elsewhere in Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We attach great importance to closer co-operation between police forces in tackling crime, and have actively sought to strengthen bilateral links. My right hon. Friend recently signed an arrangement with France providing for further practical co-operation on action against terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime. A similar arrangement was signed with Italy earlier in the year. Further action is in hand to 642
  improve bilateral and multilateral co-operation in a number of areas including mutual legal assistance and extradition arrangements, the exchange of drugs intelligence, exchange of liaison officers, and the confiscation of drug traffickers' assets; a bilateral drugs confiscation agreement with Spain was signed recently.

  Theft
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to reduce theft in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Our crime prevention handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" contains advice on how the risk of theft of all kinds can be reduced. Measures that can be taken to prevent theft from shops were put forward by a working group of the Home Office standing committee on crime prevention in its 1986 report; the working group on car crime, which reported last year, made a number of recommendations about the prevention of theft of and from cars, which are now being examined. The number of theft offences recorded in England and Wales during 1988 was 1,931,000, nearly 6 per cent. fewer than in 1987.

  Alcohol-related Crime
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crimes committed are alcohol-related.

  Mr. Hurd
  We do not collect information centrally. But a number of surveys and studies, including Home Office Research Study No. 108 "Drinking and Disorder: A study of non-Metropolitan Disorder", have pointed to a strong association between alcohol misuse and public disorder in particular. Advice on crime prevention is accordingly included in recent Home Office and interdepartmental guidance on alcohol misuse.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those initiatives that his Department is supporting to encourage replacement of custody for young offenders.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from him on 11 May at column 531. Grants have already been made to the following voluntary organisations: the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders; the National Children's Home; the Rainer Foundation; Community Service Volunteers. Other applications are under consideration.

  Passports
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on delays in processing passport applications and renewals.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the processing of passport applications at the Liverpool passport office.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 4 July at columns 99–100.

  Hospital Radio
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking an exclusive radio frequency for hospital radio.

  Mr. Renton
  I received a letter today from the hon. Member on behalf of the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations. It has been invited to discuss the matter with the radio authority in due course, and meanwhile to meet Home Office officials.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received supporting the inclusion of the European convention on human rights in British law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has received one such representation in this Session.

  Conservative Family Campaign
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Conservative Family Campaign; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Hurd
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) will be meeting representatives of the Conservative Family Campaign later this month to discuss young people's involvement in crime.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the last year for which figures are available were(a) cautioned, (b) prosecuted, and (c) convicted for (i) driving or parking in or otherwise obstructing bus lanes, (ii) parking on pavements, (iii) cycling on pavements, and (iv) careless driving by failing to give way to pedestrians when turning at junctions.

  Mr. John Patten
  The details requested on motoring offences are not separately recorded in the information collected centrally. The available information on court proceedings and cautions for parking, obstruction and careless driving offences is published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales" and in a volume of supplementary tables, both of which are in the Library. The information available centrally, which may be incomplete, indicates that in 1987, 540 persons were prosecuted for the offence of riding on a footway of whom 500 were guilty; about 1,000 persons were cautioned in 1986 (separate information was not collected in 1987).

  Police Vans (Deaths)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have(a) died and (b) been injured in cellular police vans in each year since they were introduced.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As the hon. Member is aware, there was one death in these circumstances on 19 June 1989.
  644
  Information about deaths of persons in police custody including the place and cause of death and the circumstances surrounding the death have been set out, since 1980, in the annual reports of the chief inspector of constabulary and the Metropolitan police commissioner. There do not appear to have been any previous deaths in cellular police vans. Information about injuries is not recorded centrally.

  Cellular police vans were introduced by individual police forces at different times over a period of many years. They were first used by the Lancashire police in 1984.

  Criminal Justice Act 1988
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 have not yet been implemented; and if he will make a statement explaining the reasons why these sections have not yet been implemented.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: Section 43 of the Act which widens the powers of the Court of Appeal to order a retrial, section 146 and schedule 13, which reform rules of evidence in service courts, and section 159, which creates a right of appeal against orders restricting reporting of and access to Crown Court proceedings will come into force on 31 July. Section 119, which increases the upper age limit for jurors, will come into force on 15 February 1990.

  Sections 1–22 and schedule 1, which relate to extradition, are consolidated by the Extradition Bill which has been introduced in the House of Lords. The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent before the summer recess, and its provisions will take effect two months later.

  The implementation of section 29, which concerns the issue of letters of request to foreign courts seeking their assistance in obtaining evidence, has been delayed while we have considered the role of such a provision in the context of more comprehensive legislation on mutual legal assistance, for which we will bring forward proposals at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Further consideration is being given to the implernentation of section 32 in so far as it is not already in force. This relates to the giving of evidence through a live television link by witnesses who are outside the United Kingdom.

  Section 65, which concerns the powers of civilian fine enforcement officers, will be brought into force once the preparation of related court rules is complete.

  Sections 108–117 and schedules 6 and 7 establish the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on a statutory basis. Under schedules 6 and 7, detailed procedural rules are required for the statutory scheme, and we are discussing the content of these with the board.

  Sections 150 and 151 extend to Customs and Excise officers police powers to grant bail and re-arrest if a suspect seems likely to abscond. Because of operational difficulties which would arise in practice from their interaction with provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 these provisions have not yet been brought into force.

  All 132 other sections of, and 12 schedules to, the Act are already in force.

  Belle Vale Police Station
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Merseyside as to the number of formal complaints lodged at the Belle Vale police station, Liverpool.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable that since 1 January 1989 there has been one formal complaint lodged at Belle Vale police station.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Merseyside as to the number of arrests of minors by police stationed at Belle Vale during the last six months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable that since 1 January 1989, 116 arrests of persons under the age of 17 have been made by officers from the Belle Vale sub-division.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what prosecutions have successfully taken place in each of the past five years involving the wrongful use of orange badges for the disabled.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest available information, which may be incomplete, relates to the period 1983 to 1986; in each year fewer than 20 persons were found guilty of offences under the orange badge scheme. After 1986 these offences were not separately indentifiable in the records of court proceedings collected centrally.

  Racehorses (Drugs)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many criminal cases have been brought before the courts in the past three years involving drug administering for gain of thoroughbred racehorses;

  (2) if he has plans to seek to restrict the administration of drugs on thoroughbred racehorses for the purpose of enhancing their potential;

  (3) if he will act immediately to ban the administering of anabolic steroids on racehorses in training in the United Kingdom.

  (4) if he will make it his policy to investigate fully the use of drugs on thoroughbred racehorses in the United Kingdom;

  (5) if the Government have any plans to investigate the drug testing systems currently undertaken in the British thoroughbred and breeding industry;

  (6) if the Government have recently monitored the drug testing systems involved in the British horseracing and breeding industry.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 22 December at column 428. It is an offence under the Medicines (Hormone Growth Promoters) (Prohibition of Use) Regulations 1988 to administer hormone growth promoters to any horse except for specified therapeutic or zootechnical purposes.

  Information on the number of criminal cases brought before the courts in the past three years involving the
  646
  administration for gain of drugs to thoroughbred racehorses is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Malicious Communications Act 1988
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints there have been under the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and what was their outcome.

  Mr. John Patten
  No information is yet available on the number of offences committed under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 which did not come into force until September 1988.

  Litter (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for litter offences in each of the last four years nationally and in Durham City constituency.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is in the table. Such information for England and Wales only is published annually in volume 1 of the "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables", copies of which can be found in the Library. Information for 1988 is not yet available.

  England and Wales

  Durham1

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  1984

  1,552

  1,427

  3

  3

  1985

  1,510

  1,389

  3

  3

  1986

  1,600

  1,425

  9

  9

  1987

  1,888

  1,694

  5

  4

  1 Data are not collected centrally for the City of Durham alone but for the whole of the Durham petty sessional division.

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times and in what instances he used his powers to prevent marches likely to stir up racial hatred in(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the Public Order Act 1986 public processions may be prohibited with the Secretary of State's consent only if the chief officer of police of the areas concerned reasonably believes that the imposition of conditions under section 12 of the Act will not be sufficient to prevent the holding of public processions from resulting in serious public disorder. Consent on these grounds was given to banning orders on one occasion in 1986, four times in 1987, three times in 1988 and has been given three times in 1989.

  Dogs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce compulsory muzzling in public for particular breeds of dog.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I explained in the debate on the Adjournment on 15 June, I am not persuaded that this is the right course to take.
  647
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to introducing schemes to encourage dog owners to have dogs neutered as a move to reducing the dog population.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am not persuaded that this is properly a matter for the Government. The care and wellbeing of pets is the responsibility of owners.

  On the general matters of local authority powers in relation to stray dogs, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement in the debate on the Local Government and Housing Bill on 14 June at column 1053.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to widening the authority of parking wardens to apprehend and report(a) people allowing their dogs to foul footpaths and (b) people committing litter offences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to extend the functions of traffic wardens beyond their primary purpose, which is to assist the police in the enforcement of road traffic law.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for drinking and driving offences there were in 1987–88 and for 1989 to date nationally and in Durham City constituency.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to findings of guilt for driving and so on, after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and is published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales". Table 9 of issue 32/88 gives the figures for 1987. In 1987, there were 115,000 findings of guilt for such offences of which 139 were recorded for Durham magistrates' court. Figures for 1988 will be published in the autumn.

  Horse Racing
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what active support he is giving to the preservation of small racecourses in Great Britain.
  648
  Mr. John Patten
  The Horserace Betting Levy Board has a responsibility for supporting and promoting, as cost-effectively as possible, the provision of horseracing as an attractive, country-wide entertainment. To that end, the board devotes a substantial and increasing proportion of its resources to improving and sustaining racecourses of all sizes. Details are given in the board's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities in England and Wales have so far registered for the basis of the poll tax registration with those responsible for the Data Protection Act 1984; which councils have been refused registration and for what reasons; what further guidance in addition to the community charge practice notes the Data Protection Registrar has issued to local authorities; if he will place a copy of such guidance in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: Community charge registration officers have to register under the Data Protection Act for compiling and maintaining community charge registers if those registers are to be kept on computer.

  The data protection registrar, who reports directly to Parliament, informs me that by the end of June, he had identified 293 applications from CCROs for new register entries for the purpose of compiling and maintainng a community charge register. In addition, a number of local authorities had applied in their own name to register for this purpose.

  I understand that so far, one application by Trafford borough council has been refused on the grounds that some of the information asked for was not necessary for the CCRO's statutory functions and that the form did not explain that there was no duty to provide information about relationships of people in households. In the light of undertakings given by the CCRO about the data to be processed for registration a revised application is bung considered.

  The registrar has written to all CCROs in England and arrangements have been made for a copy to be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Soviet Tank Production
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest NATO estimate of the rate of production of Soviet tanks and how this compares with each of the years since President Gorbachev came to power in 1985.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, our latest estimate for Soviet tank production is 3,500 for 1988. We assess that that output rate has remained constant since Mr. Gorbachev came to power in 1985.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in two recent BBC broadcasts and in an ITN broadcast as recently as last Friday publicity was given to the fact that the Soviets had reduced a few old Russian tanks to scrap and no publicity has been given to the fact that that leaves 51,000 tanks in their hands? Is it not strange that Gorbachev, who has talked of peace for four years, has taken no action to reduce the most offensive weapon in the Russian tank armoury?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to point out that the Warsaw Pact tank fleet numbers something like 51,500, while the NATO tank fleet numbers approximately 16,400. Clearly the recent reductions in the Soviet and Warsaw Pact tank fleet to which he referred are but a fleabite compared with the whole fleet.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both the Question and the Answer may be dated in view of the announcement this morning that unexpected progress has been made in discussions between NATO and the Warsaw Pact on cuts in this area? If the reports in the responsible press that unexpected progress has been made are correct, could not the Question and the Answer be harmful and hinder that process:
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that we make any contribution to the successful prosecution of arms control negotiations—which of course we very much hope for—by distorting or concealing the true picture. The fact of the matter is that the Soviet preponderance in conventional forces of all kinds, particularly main battle tanks, which are the subject of my noble friend's Question, is considerable. Clearly we need to address that enormous Soviet preponderance if we are to achieve balance and verifiable measures of arms control.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we welcome the submission of the
418
NATO proposals in Vienna today and the possibility of progress being made? Does he think that there is any real chance of progress in that field in the next few years? If there were agreement on conventional weapons, would the Prime Minister support it or would she stand aside as she has on short-range nuclear weapons reductions in Europe in the past?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. We have made clear that we very much support the NATO proposals in respect of conventional arms control measures. We shall do our best to see that progress is made in that area and shall support all the proposals being made in the Vienna forum to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord help us to understand the tone of his answers? What is gained by pointing out that President Gorbachev has not done something which he has not said that he would do? Is not the important fact that he has said that he will reduce the tank and other forces to an agreed balance at a much lower level? Is not that what the United States responded to yesterday with new American plans for use at the convenional forces reduction talks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Mr. Gorbachev has said a great many things but done rather less. We now hope that the proposals which he has made can be turned into firm proposals which we can accept. We shall hasten to deliver our side of the bargain.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord seriously suggest that Mr. Gorbachev, by abandoning the Brezhnev plan, has done nothing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I was able to point out to your Lordships the other day in answer to a similar Question, Soviet production of tanks—to take today's Question—has not changed by so much as a single jot since Mr. Gorbachev came to power. The noble Lord might be interested to know that the Soviets still have five tank factories, all operating at the usual rates.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend say on this matter of saying and doing whether Mr. Gorbachev has said anything about chemical weapons which he holds and if so whether he has done anything?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, until two years ago the Soviet Union disclaimed any ownership of chemical weapons. More recently they have admitted, I think, to some 50,000 tonnes of chemical and biological warfare agents. We assess that they have many times that quantity.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a very sensitive aspect when we are talking about the Soviet Union and what Mr. Gorbachev is trying to do? Does he accept that we must be extremely realistic about the situation? Having said that, does he agree or disagree with what the President of the United States said only two days

419
ago in Poland with regard to his discussions with Mr. Gorbachev on what they hope to achieve in the field of disarmament? While we can perhaps say at this stage that nothing has been done, we believe that both the president and Mr. Gorbachev will come to an agreement whereby there will be a genuine, realistic reduction in all kinds of arms.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to his hopes for the future which I share. What I must do is point out the present situation, which I am afraid represents no change from that which we have seen for a number of years past. If progress is now to be made, we warmly welcome it and shall hasten to play our part.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Lord referred to a flea bite, was he referring to the withdrawal of tanks, including the most modern types, from East Germany? Do they not number more than 5,000? Is that not a fair start in any case and something not to be derided?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has been misled by some of the propaganda. The number of tank reductions is, I think, about 200 or 300, and that clearly makes little impact on the 51,500 that the Soviets possess.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say how the Soviets' current production of 3,500 new tanks a year compares with NATO's production? If it is considerably less, is it not true to say that the gap between NATO tank strength and Soviet tank strength has grown steadily since Mr. Gorbachev came to power?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, last year—the fourth year of Mr. Gobachev's period in office—Soviet tank production was, as I have said, some 3,500. NATO tank production was about 800. In other words, Soviet tank production was about four and a half times that of the West.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister explain how he can give us those precise figures, bearing in mind that we have always been told that the Communist countries do not reveal those figures? The Minister has precise figures. Will he tell us how he obtains them and how accurate they are?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the figures come from a variety of sources.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that, since Mr. Gorbachev came to power, the prospects for disarmament have vastly improved and the possibility of Soviet aggression in Europe has greatly diminished? When will the Government and some of their supporters start looking pleasant facts in the face?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are looking the facts in the face, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so. I certainly recognise that there is a much better atmosphere in the arms control fora with
420
which we are concerned. We warmly welcome that improved atmosphere. Certainly a variety of new proposals are being made that clearly bear careful examination, which we shall give them. But the facts of the matter to which the noble Lord referred are that the Soviet preponderance in conventional weapons remains enormous and their rate of production appears to us to be quite unabated.

Nuclear Installations: Cancer Incidence
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are conducting any research into the correlation between the incidence of leukaemia and other cancers with the operation of nuclear installations.
Lord Henley: My Lords, following a recommendation in Sir Douglas Black's report on cancer in West Cumbria, the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) was established in 1985 to advise the Government. It has produced three reports concerning the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in the vicinity of certain nuclear establishments, and has made a number of recommendations which the Government have accepted. The Government are funding research to implement the recommendations of the Black and COMARE Reports and are supporting other related studies.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome the reply given by the noble Lord which is apparently contrary to that given by his noble friend during proceedings on the Electricity Bill when I raised the same question and was told that there was no connection between leukaemia and nuclear installations. I am delighted to know that the noble Lord and, I hope, the noble Baroness have read the COMARE Report. Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government have accepted the following quotation from the report:
"The findings set out in this report, taken with those in previous reports, indicate that there is a statistically significant increase in the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinities of Sellafield, Dounreay, and Aldermaston and Burghfield"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we accept that there is evidence of association of the incidence of leukaemia in the vicinity of those nuclear installations, but we do not accept that that is evidence of a causal mechanism. Until we know what the mechanism is, it is not clear what action is indicated.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that we are trespassing on a delicate, demographic matter? The sampling procedures to diagnose a leukaemia cluster are delicate statistical matters. Will he also confirm that there are many leukaemia clusters that are in no way connected with nuclear power stations and that in granite areas such as Cornwall where the natural background radiation is vey high, there is apparently no incidence of leukaemia clusters?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. There are many clusters of leukaemia which are found not near power stations. There are very many complex issues to be addressed in estimating the possible health risks of low doses of radiation. The interpretation of data, in relation to what the noble Lord said was a very small number of people, presents many problems. As with any relatively rare disease, the incidence of leukaemia naturally varies widely from one area to another.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that whatever is proved about the disease, there is very genuine concern felt by the people who are suffering and their families? I warmly welcome the announcement made about the new research that is being sponsored. Can the noble Lord say a little more about it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course I accept the noble Lord's concern. I live in Cumbria, though admittedly quite a long way from Sellafield, and I know that many people are worried. I am sure that noble Lords will accept and acknowledge that this is an area which calls for scrupulous and expert investigation of the issues involved, and inevitably that will take time.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while carrying out this very necessary research, will the Government also undertake research into the known fact that there has been a cluster of leukaemia cases far in excess of the statistical average in the region of Seascale for something like 200 years? In other words, whatever nasty things Sellafield may or may not be doing, something else is doing something quite nasty as well and those of us who live in that area, as I do, would quite like to know what it is.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is indeed something that Sir Douglas Black considered in his report and I believe it was in the first report of COMARE, which related to West Cumbria.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that it is a fact that Sellafield is very visible from the top of Scafell and Scafell Pike? They are composed almost entirely of granite and give rise to streams which run past the installation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, what my noble and learned friend has to say about the geography of the area is of course quite correct.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, since we all have to die of something does it much matter of what?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid it does. In the case of childhood leukaemia, it seems rather unfair that children should expect to die young. Possibly when we get a little older it may not matter.
Lord Stoddard of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the areas of Burghfield and Aldermaston there is a continuing concern about the
422
report and about these leukaemia clusters. Is he further aware that Berkshire is built not on granite but on chalk? Those of us who live in that area hope that there will be further research and perhaps further information can be made available in due course.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows that the third report of COMARE which came out this year, reported on the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord recognises that there is widespread public concern in this respect, particularly in relation to the vulnerability of children. During the passage of the Electricity Bill through this House I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, whether the health costs were taken into account by the Government when considering the cost of building new nuclear reactors. Can I take it that the noble Lord's answer to me this afternoon indicates that the Government are now taking into account the cost of the research that is needed into this whole matter when calculating the cost of nuclear reactors?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. I said that there is evidence of association but not evidence of a causal mechanism in connecting the clusters of leukaemia with nuclear power stations.

"Working for Patients": Discussions
3.24 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What meetings they plan to hold with associations representing health professionals to discuss issues arising from the White Paper Working for Patients.
Lord Henley: My Lords, a wide variety of fruitful meetings, both at ministerial and official level, have already taken place with associations representing health professionals to discuss the implementation of the Government's proposals for the National Health Service. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as a result of some of these meetings there is now even graver apprehension, in that members of big associations such as the BMA, the Royal Colleges, the nursing associations and the association of health visitors feel that they have not been given a square deal in the discussions that have taken place? Does he agree that the members of those associations and their predecessors have given their lives to working for patients and that they are apprehensive not so much for their own future but for the future of the National Health Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, my right honourable friends have had many meetings with various associations. I can only say that we remain committed to the proposals outlined in the White Paper.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the point of further meetings if the Secretary of State continues to ignore the advice given to him in good faith by the doctors? Do we not now need to have some pilot studies to look into some of these proposals to find out who is right about the possible consequences of the schemes? Is it the doctors or the Secretary of State?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not just doctors who advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There are many other people involved. As I said, we remain committed to our proposals but we are ready to discuss ideas on implementation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the meetings but why are the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues so crude in their condemnation of the doctors? If the doctors who work in the health service genuinely feel that the proposals put forward by the Government may damage both patient care and the structure of the health service, are they not absolutely right to say so? They belong to a non-political organisation. Can the Minister suggest any motive in the BMA's mind for attacking the Government except its genuine feelings?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that my right honourable friend has not condemned the doctors. He has condemned the propaganda, which is not all accurate, that has been put out by the BMA.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that what he has condemned is what the doctors have been saying? They have been saying it very publicly and openly. Can he suggest any reason why they should do that other than because they believe what they say?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I cannot speak for the motives of the doctors. I said that my right honourable friend condemned the BMA and its campaign against the proposals in the White Paper. It has been designed to give a totally wrong impression of what the proposed reforms are intended to do.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the BMA's campaign was authorised by the doctors of England, Scotland and Wales? They told their officials what the policy ought to be. They said, "We are the doctors and you will now make representations to the Government". All that has happened has been a very vulgar attack on the president of the BMA by the Secretary of State. May I urge the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend to be good enough to meet again in a fresh spirit of endeavour, all these associations, including the BMA, the Health Visitors' Association, the Royal Colleges and all those who represent the nurses? Those associations are of the firm belief that in
424
previous meetings with the Secretary of State the real desire behind the Green Paper or the White Paper is ultimately to destroy the National Health Service.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yet again I have to tell the noble Lord that we are not out to destroy the health service as he seems to think. As I said earlier, my right honourable friend will consider requests for meetings from any association representing health professions.

EC Funds: Audit Procedures
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the Court of Auditors to have taken sufficient action in exposing fraud upon EC funds to enable member states to institute appropriate criminal proceedings; and if not, whether they will bring forward proposals to this end in the Council of Ministers.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Court of Auditors plays a major role in identifying legislative or procedural shortcomings which can lead to fraud against the Community Budget. Where it has details of individual cases, I understand that it passes them to the appropriate authorities.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that charmingly anodyne Answer, but does the Court of Auditors maintain direct and effective contact with the prosecuting authorities in the member states?
Is the Minister satisfied that all relevant information is made available by the Court of Auditors to the prosecuting authorities here? Will proposals for improved enforcement machinery be put forward at the Council of Ministers level, not necessarily involving the Commission?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my reply may well be anodyne but it happens also to be accurate. What the Court of Auditors does is to show shortcomings in procedures. It is for member states to enforce those procedures. The Commission now has an anti-fraud unit that we have supported. Indeed we keep in close touch with it. As a result of that, for example on export refunds, an area which has been suspect in the past, the Commission would like 5 per cent. of all consignments eligible for export refunds to be checked. In the United Kingdom the Customs and Excise has an objective of checking 7 per cent. It is for us and for all member states to put our own houses in order.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marlyebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is absolutely essential in this connection that there should be a unified law of fraud in these matters, setting up a unified law creating criminal offences, and that the courts throughout the Community should have ample jurisidction to prosecute such frauds and to

425
convict where need be, irrespective of the frontiers? Can the Minister tell me something about the negotiations for a proper convention regarding these matters between the Community states?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course I bow to the knowledge of the law of my noble and learned friend. The law on fraud must be a very complex subject covering such matters as those which concern aspects of my department other than this specific matter, which is a fraud on Community payments. I should not have thought that there would be any great difficulty in the law on fraud. Where people were claiming refunds or payments from the Community on an incorrect basis, that would seem to me to be a matter that could easily be checked. However, I shall certainly take cognisance of my noble and learned friend's remarks and inquire of the appropriate authorities.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has any member state yet brought criminal proceedings in respect of frauds on EC funds? If the answer is that there is no evidence of that having been done, does it not point to an enormous omission and gap in the procedures of the EC? The fact and quantum of the frauds is notorious. So is not this majestic detachment on the part of the EC authorities greatly disturbing?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will realise that the use of the word "notorious" has to be proved by evidence to exist rather than there just being allegations that it exists. I am quite sure that in a previous time he would have made that point equally to me.
The Commission set up an anti-fraud unit in 1988, very much with the Government's support. We have been playing a leading role to ensure that fraud is brought under control. It is for member states within the Community to ensure that fraud does not take place within their own jurisdiction.
What is now happening is this. We have set down certain procedures and ways in which checking has to take place. It will be up to the Court of Auditors to ensure that member states put this into effect. It is recognised that a properly mounted programme against fraud will take from three to five years to implement. However, I shall check to see what prosecutions have taken place within the United Kingdom. I shall write to the noble Lord and put an answer in the Library.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, despite what he has said, some people are still impressed by the lack of urgency about this fraud? It amounts to at least £2,000 million a year, a sum that would be sufficient if it occurred in this country to bring down the Government. Will he urge upon his right honourable friends, and indeed on the Commission, that this is a matter which has to be cleared up?
Will the noble Lord persuade his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that what causes this fraud is the continued existence of the absurd and protectionist common agricultural policy? Will the Government, together with other governments, do
426
more to phase out this disgraceful policy? It is inimical to the best interests of the Community and the rest of the world.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that the Prime Minister has been to the forefront in seeking to bring a sense of reality into the CAP. We are also well aware of the amount of fraud. It is a little dangerous to give estimates of the amount because they are only estimates and they have to be proven. However, it is for us to put our own house in order. I have already mentioned that the Commission wants an objective of 5 per cent. of consignments set. We have set an objective of 7 per cent. We already concentrate checks on high risk consignments and products. Additional training has been given by Customs to some 4,000 officers in order to begin to implement this enormous task of checking on fraud. CAP liaison officers have been appointed to improve the flow of information concerning the CAP fraud.
It is very much a matter that we have to bring home to the whole Community. It is not necessarily only within the United Kingdom that such matters take place. That is why we played a leading role in bringing home through the Court of Auditors the setting up of new procedures within the Community. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall be in the forefront of ensuring that our fellow members follow through these procedures rigorously.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely our trouble here is not too few laws but far too many. When we introduced what are substantially methods to control trade through elected public bodies at NATO, we were very naive indeed if we did not all know that that was a procedure which was going to involve wholesale fraud. These public international efforts to control trade always do. Is it not quite obvious that the right method is to try to get fewer laws, not more, because we cannot administer the ones that we have?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not a question of new laws but of enforcing those that already exist.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Government are well aware from reading a report that came from a Select Committee of your Lordships' House that the frauds that take place against Community funds are of an international character. They involve not only the countries of Europe, including, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, our own, but also third countries. In these circumstances will the noble Lord explain why both the DTI and the Treasury declined to accept an invitation to the Seventh International Symposium on Commercial Crime held in Cambridge from 2nd to 7th July, attended by leading investigators, lawyers and other regulators from all parts of the world? Why was the invitation declined by Her Majesty's Government to attend something that might have been of very considerable assistance to them in promoting the exchange of information and in learning of the methods that other countries adopt for the detection and prevention of commercial crime?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not know to which conference it is that the noble Lord refers. His question is a long way from the Question on the Order Paper; but there is no shortage of international conferences in this world today about a whole variety of subjects. The only meetings that my department attends are those which it presumably considers are worth attending.

Summer Recess
3.40 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 27th July and return on Monday, 9th October. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 27th July.

Honda: Inward Investment
3.41 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on a major Japanese inward investment project in the motor sector by Honda.
Since shortly after its return to full private ownership this day last year, Rover have been discussing with Honda how best to strengthen each other's position in Europe. One element in these discussions has been Honda's site at Swindon, which has already been developed for engine manufacture. I am sure the House will join me in welcoming today's announcement that Honda is to extend that facility to full manufacture of cars for the European market. The new plant will add some 1,300 jobs to Honda's existing workforce at Swindon as well as providing additional opportunities for Rover Group's own Swindon facility, from which it will source pressings. The project will involve additional investment of around £300 million and no financial assistance has been requested.
The plant is scheduled to commence manufacture at the end of 1991 with a limited volume of Honda cars. These will be in direct substitution for imports from Japan. One year later a full range of production operations will start with output rising rapidly to 100,000 cars per annum in 1994; this will include cars built for Rover. Rover will continue to build cars for Honda at Longbridge. Honda have indicated its wish to achieve the maximum commercially feasible level of local content throughout the project and it is its firm intention to reach an 80 per cent. level within 18 months of the start of full commercial operations.
The companies have now decided to cement their partnership through significant minority cross-shareholdings beween Honda's UK manufacturing company and the Rover Group. They believe this will have important commercial benefits for both companies. I see it as a vote of confidence by Honda in the United Kingdom and in Rover Group, and a tribute to the efforts of Rover's management and workforce in restructuring that
428
company to meet the exacting standards of today's market place. I am confident that today's announcement amounts to a further step in the renaissance of the United Kingdom motor industry, ensuring that it will play a significant role in the European market of the 1990s. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for making this Statement. The House is always grateful to the Secretary of State for making all Statements. Of course we welcome the announcement. As I have said before on a number of occasions, we welcome Japanese investment in our industry provided that it is complementary to and not destructive of our indigenous industry. I join the noble Lord in tribute to the Rover workforce. It has done extremely well in adjusting to the new times in which we live.
However, I have to ask the noble Lord what exactly is the purpose of this Statement? What has it to do with Parliament? Is not Honda a Japanese company in private ownership? Is not Rover a subsidiary of British Aerospace, which is a company in private ownership? Has not the noble Lord said directly that no financial assistance has been requested and therefore Government money is not involved? Why was there not simply a press statement from the two companies? What is the point on which Parliament needs to be informed?
If I were a shareholder of British Aerospace, I would probably ask the board of directors of British Aerospace what will be the employment and other implications for the Rover factories at Longbridge and Cowley. If I were a shareholder of Honda, I would no doubt be asking whether the company was correctly quoted on 21st June by Reuters as saying, "We have no plan to buy a stake in Rover or produce cars in Britain at the moment". Those are the kinds of questions that any shareholder would ask at any general meeting.
I fully understand that after the beer fiasco the Secretary of State needs good news to announce. But for the life of me I simply cannot understand why a deal between two private companies, however welcome it is and however much of an improvement it is, without government assistance and without any government money should be the object of a parliamentary Statement particularly from this Government which claims to be non-interventionist in industry. Unless the Secretary of State can satisfy me on that, I am bound to say that he seems to be treating it as a glorified press conference and as such is wasting the time of the House.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am grateful for the Statement given to us by the Secretary of State. I should like to raise three specific issues on the Statement that he made, and make a more general point.
The three specific issues are as follows. First on sourcing: it is very satisfactory to note that it is the intention of Honda to build up to an 80 per cent. level of sourcing from the UK within 18 months. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the component

429
suppliers will be suitably geared up to meet that increased demand in that period? Obviously if they can do it sooner, that is all the better.
Secondly, we have been reading much about transport bottlenecks these days, Are we satisfied that as a proportion of this increased production will, I presume, be for export, the transport facilities to the ports will be adequate for this extra traffic? It would be unfortunate if all the cars were built but that there were delays in getting them to the ports.
Thirdly, research has not been mentioned. There are cross-holdings between the two companies; but will efforts be made by Honda to build up its research effort over here, either on its own or preferably in conjunction with Rover?
My more general point is that I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of the report in the Daily Telegraph of 10th July in which it was stated that the UK's industrial growth in the next few years is likely to be increasingly dependent on the performance of Japanese and other foreign investors. We all welcome foreign investment in Britain. It would be unfortunate if relatively more and more of our industrial effort were in overseas hands. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the increase in foreign investment will be matched by a smilar growth in indigenous investment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, never before has the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, ever made a more accurate statement. "I cannot understand", the noble Lord said two or three times, and he demonstrated that completely. "Will not understand" may perhaps be a more accurate expression; but I remind the noble Lord precisely what he would have said had I not come down to the House, for it was exactly a year to this very day that I announced that the arrangement with British Aerospace was being completed. Here is British Aerospace selling off one-fifth of its company to Honda, and Honda selling one-fifth of its company to British Aerospace, within the United Kingdom. All who were consulted on this matter advised that it would be of concern to your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord is not the slightest bit interested in good news. The noble Lord is not the slightest bit interested that Nissan, Toyota and now Honda are investing £1·8 billion in industry in the United Kingdom. That will create some 16,000 to 17,000 jobs. As a result at least half a million cars will be produced in this country, and that will give employment in areas such as Swindon, Derby and Sunderland. That will do more than almost anything else to resuscitate the component industry in this country to world standards.
I do not think that I need to say any more about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. But to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I should say that there is one matter with which I have little doubt that Honda had to deal. That was to ensure that the component suppliers were up to standard. It is a tribute to the component suppliers in this country that Japanese manufacturers feel that they can now settle here. Their settling here is dependent not only on the quality of labour and quality of workmanship
430
which has been shown to be superb, but the quality of component suppliers on which all these projects depend.
We have already seen from some of the earlier arrivals to our shores that they are now beginning to bring in research and development. We have seen that from those who came here a long time ago. Even today Japanese inward investment amounts to only some 2 per cent. of all foreign inward investment. We have a long way to go. At a time when the United Kingdom is the greatest equity investor around the world we should welcome whatever inward investment arrives.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, contrary to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, many of us would be delighted to hear similar Statements to this very regularly indeed? It is good news for our country and in particular for those who are still unemployed and are being offered increasing opportunities for jobs.
Is my noble friend also aware that many of us find immensely encouraging the fact that a foreign country, with the world to choose from, has the good sense and good judgment to invest in this country where the economy is sound and the Government are pursuing sensible policies?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because he at least recognises something which noble Lords opposite have not. It is that we provide the most welcome climate for manufacturing investment anywhere within the European Community. That is not my judgment and it is not the Government who say so. It is that of those who come to settle within our shores.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that naturally I welcome the fact that Honda has decided to invest more in Swindon, a constituency which I represented and in which I am still most interested? Can he give the net total of new jobs and say whether what was called the Pressed Steel Fisher plant will be combined with the Honda plant, or whether the British Aerospace factory at Swindon will continue to produce pressings for its manufacturing capacity in other parts of the country? Can he also say what is meant by "80 per cent. local content"? Does it mean that there will be 80 per cent. UK content or 80 per cent. EC content? Noble Lords will understand that the two are quite different. Can he also confirm that it will be 1994 before 100,000 units are produced, and can he anticipate what proportion of those will be for export?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that the new plant, which will be in addition to the existing engine plant in Swindon, will add some 1,300 new jobs to Honda's existing workforce. It will also provide additional opportunities for Rover Group's Swindon facility from which it will source pressings. Pressings will come from the Fisher plant and that will be an extension to it.

431
There are agreed definitions of the content. It is of course Community content and not United Kingdom content. That would not be possible in today's world, but according to experience the overwhelming majority will come from the United Kingdom.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the present level of unemployment in Swindon?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I require notice of that question but I can say that it is quite low.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we all welcome my noble friend's Statement. It provides further evidence of the confidence of Japanese industry in the UK as a place in which to invest and in our workforce. However, is he aware that the motor car component manufacturing companies are concerned that it will lead to a position where motor components are made under licence or to the designs of foreign companies? Therefore, our components manufacturers will degenerate into subcontractors making to other people's designs. Is he satisfied about the future of our motor components manufacturers in that respect? Can he also say why he believes that it is possible for a great Japanese motor car manufacturer to invest such large sums of money in this country in order to make a large number of motor cars while it does not appear possible for our own companies to make such large investments for the same purpose?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, for the answer to my noble friend's question one must look back over the past 20 years. In particular one must look at the history of British Leyland from the moment that it was nationalised to realise that the course of conduct upon which it then embarked was such as to ensure that it could never be in a position to invest the kind of money which Japanese companies have invested.
I recall the time that I visited Nissan in Japan and saw that its 1952 car was an Austin A30. When one looks at many of the Japanese car manufacturers which have achieved such a dominant position one realises that we lost that market as much as they gained it. Now some of the foremost manufacturers in the world are coming to this country. The components that they buy will be produced by United Kingdom companies provided that we manufacture to their standard.
I should not be concerned too much about who designed the components. In the end the car companies always have the last say. In addition to those companies, there is always a large manufacturing interest in this country. According to the way things are going, by the mid-1990s we shall have returned to the maximum production which we saw previously—something approaching 2 million cars a year.

The Defence Estimates 1989
3.55 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cmnd. 675-I).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak to the two other Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper when winding up and then move them formally at the end of this debate.
Recent years have seen an extraordinary change in the climate of East-West relations. The developments in arms control, the attempt to reform political and economic structures in the Soviet Union and the increasing diversity and independence being shown by the other countries of the Warsaw Pact clearly have great significance for the security of the United Kingdom and our NATO allies.
As circumstances change and the prospects for a stable and lasting peace in Europe look brighter than for many years, the rationale underlying our defence policies may seem to be less obvious than in more difficult times. But in truth it is no less cogent.
One continuous thread has run through Britain's defence policy during the post-war years. Successive governments have recognised that the overwhelming military capability of the Soviet Union and its allies and the destructive power of modern weapons mean that we cannot defend ourselves in isolation.
This acknowledgement of the potentially appalling nature of warfare has moulded what are now the fundamental elements of our defence strategy: that the defence of the United Kingdom is possible only as part of the collective defence of the free world and that the only real safeguard against major aggression is the ability to respond in whatever way is appropriate—if needs must, with nuclear weapons.
These are not easy or comfortable justifications for the efforts of successive governments to ensure that our contribution to the defence of the West has been effective. In an ideal world we would not need armed forces. But the world is not ideal. It is still an unstable and unpredictable place as the events last month in China demonstrated so clearly.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates noted that this year is the 40th anniversary of the NATO alliance. NATO has twin and complementary aims. These are to deter aggression by maintaining adequate military strength and political cohesion and, no less important, to pursue the search for progress towards a more stable international environment in which solutions to underlying political issues can be sought. NATO can take much satisfaction in the progress which has been made in achieving both of these aims.
Despite instability and great changes in many other parts of the world, NATO has kept Europe at peace for 40 years. It has done this by deploying both conventional and nuclear forces and adopting a strategy—flexible response—which provides a clear linkage between them. The aim of deterrence is not

433
simply to dissuade a potential aggressor from using nuclear weapons against the members of the alliance. It is more fudamental. NATO's aim is to remove the option of war permanently from the East-West scene. This is an ambitious goal but the greatly increased destructive power of conventional weapons, as well as the consequences of nuclear warfare, make it essential to pursue it.
The possession by NATO of nuclear weapons is an indispensable part of this plan. We know that conventional forces cannot themselves provide a sufficient deterrent. An aggressor might always calculate that a swift attack against a solely conventional defence could secure worthwhile gains. Only the awesome power of nuclear weapons, an evident capability to use them effectively and a clear resolve to do so if necessary, presents a would-be aggressor with the certain knowledge that the damage he would suffer would outweigh any gains he might make.
This is the background to the approach to negotiations on short range nuclear missile forces in Europe which alliance leaders adopted at the recent summit. What we have said is that there will be no third zero. Negotiations on the partial reduction of these forces, leading to equal and verifiable levels, will begin only after an agreement on conventional forces is completed and is being implemented. There will be no reductions in NATO's short-range nuclear missile forces until a CFE agreement has been implemented in full.
The allies have further agreed that to maintain the effectiveness of these conventional and nuclear forces they will continue to be kept up-to-date where necessary. Since there is to be no third zero, and since the Lance missile system will be obsolete by the mid-1990s, the allies have agreed that the question of the introduction and deployment of a follow-on system for Lance will be dealt with in 1992.
NATO's second goal has been to reduce tensions and promote stability by engaging in dialogue with the East. The climate of distrust between East and West has in the past circumscribed the extent to which we could pursue this. But the new leadership in the Soviet Union has been prepared to face economic and political realities, domestically and internationally. This has opened the door and there is now room for us to set about constructing a new relationship between East and West. The agenda for that process, in the fields of arms control and human rights, was set by us.
But this prospect should not blind us to two important realities: first, that much unfinished business remains from those parts of the agenda that we have so far been able to address—and I am thinking especially of the Soviet Union's unparalleled chemical warfare capability and the differences in approach between East and West to the role of nuclear weapons; and secondly, that even if we can attain a more normal relationship with the East, difficulties and mutual misunderstandings may still occur.
The Soviet state was founded on authoritarianism. We cannot therefore expect the Soviet Union to become overnight, perhaps even within a generation,
434
one of the family of democratic nations. Glasnost and perestroika do not mean that all the objectionable features of the communist system have been done away with. They have not, and for the foreseeable future they will not be. It would be foolish and dangerous to pretend anything else. For instance, Soviet attitudes towards such issues as freedom of information and expression do not match Western standards. They are unlikely to do so for many years to come.
The alliance has a clear vision of the kind of progress the West wants to see. The summit declaration issued at the end of May set out how we think progress should be made. And there are encouraging signs. For instance, the Soviet Union has realised that the policies it has pursued have created insecurity and instability for itself and for others. It now appears to accept that aggression is not a legitimate instrument of foreign policy. It has withdrawn from Afghanistan and scaled down its destabilising activities in the third world. We look forward to the day when a similar realisation is established with regard to internal affairs and the toleration of dissent.
We shall also welcome the day when the Soviet Union finally comes clean on chemical weapons. The Soviet Union's chemical warfare capability is the world's largest and most sophisticated. And we strongly suspect that, contrary to Soviet claims, production of CW agents in the Soviet Union is still continuing and that testing of chemicial weapons has not ceased.
We estimate the size of the Soviet CW stockpile to be several times higher than the 50,000 tonnes claimed. We believe that the stockpile includes types of agent that were not disclosed to our experts during their visit to Shikhany, and that research and development into new agents continues. And, contrary to Soviet claims, we have good reason to believe that the Soviet Union has stationed chemical weapons in Eastern Europe and that such weapons have also been produced by other members of the Warsaw Pact.
There are thus considerable discrepancies between Soviet statements and what we believe on good evidence to be the case. We have welcomed the increased openness shown by the Soviet Union on conventional forces. But the Soviet Union must show the same openness on CW. Otherwise we will simply not have the confidence that is essential for our goal: the complete global abolition of chemical weapons.
The commitment of the United States to Western Europe is very strong. The Bush administration has, like its predecessors, reaffirmed that the security and continued independence of Western Europe is vital to the security of the United States itself.
But the transatlantic link faces important pressures. The Soviet Union's efforts to divide NATO have not slackened. And there are budgetary pressures throughout the alliance. NATO cannot work if the burdens of membership are not fairly shared and seen to be so. The creditable record of the United Kingdom in this respect and its contribution to the alliance is acknowledged by all.
But for some nations, fair sharing of the burdens may entail greater commitment.
Some may argue that this would sit ill with the new climate of the Gorbachev era. But it does not. The stronger and more unified the alliance, the stronger the guarantee we can provide not only of our own security but of peace for the whole of Europe. As the late Lord Attlee observed in 1936:
"You cannot divide peace in Europe. You must have one peace running right through".
But there is more to do, especially in the field of European co-operation. It remains neither desirable nor achievable to create a European security entity distinct from the alliance. European nations are already striving to strengthen their contribution through, for example, the Independent European Programme Group. We are six months into our two-year term in the chair of the IEPG; I shall mention its work a little later on.
The United Kingdom's defence budget, at more than £20 billion this year, is among the highest in NATO, both in absolute terms and in the share it represents of our national wealth. And these resources have allowed us to continue with our extensive programme of re-equipping the Armed Forces.
But however much we modernise equipment, our defence effort is crucially dependent on the quality of our servicemen and women. I am sure your Lordships would wish to join me in paying tribute to the professionalism and the dedication they display in carrying out their duties. Whether serving in their NATO roles, supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland or assisting with disaster relief—for example, at Lockerbie and Kegworth—we expect the best of them and we are not disappointed.
Recruiting and retaining sufficient trained manpower has become more difficult for the services, and the problem will be exacerbated as the effects of the demographic trough are increasingly felt and continued economic growth leads to greater competition for labour. We are seeking to overcome these problems. The recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body have been implemented in full by this Government and we are ensuring that terms and conditions of service are appropriate to modern conditions.
We also want to improve opportunities for women in the Services so that increased numbers, in a wider range of jobs, can relieve some of our difficulties. And we want to increase the number of recruits that we attract from ethnic minorities. The survey on which we reported in the Statement shows quite clearly that members of ethnic minorities are substantially under-represented in the Services. This is an unsatisfactory situation and we aim to improve it.
We also want to increase the numbers of volunteer reservists. They already play a vital NATO role defending the United Kingdom base, the central front and the waters around our coasts alongside their regular counterparts. We are working hard to inform the public of the contribution made by reservists and to persuade employers that time spent
436
on reserve training is not only good for the country but is also a sound investment for the employer.
We also rely heavily on the commitment, loyalty and expertise of our civilian workforce. But here, too, we have difficulties in attracting and retaining sufficient staff. The demographic trough will also have an adverse effect on our ability to fill vacancies in the civilian workforce. These difficulties are referred to both in the Statement on the Defence Estimates and in the recent report on staffing in the procurement executive produced by the Defence Committee in another place.
The Government are tackling these problems by bringing greater flexibility and responsiveness to Civil Service pay. The new long-term pay agreements enable us to target extra money where it is needed; and we have introduced, or have in train, a range of other measures including special allowances, more flexible working patterns and relocation of large blocks of work away from London where the problems of recruitment and retention are worst.
We are determined to continue to provide the resources necessary for effective defence; but we are also determined to ensure that these resources are effectively used. We must get the best value for these substantial sums of money. Our approaches to doing so are outlined in the White Paper. The most significant change in prospect is the new management strategy which we are adopting for handling our business.
Another key element is the continued pursuit of a more commercial approach to equipment procurement. Competition has encouraged offers of keen price and tight delivery schedules. We have combined this with taut contract conditions to give companies the greatest possible incentive to meet the promises they have made. Where interim payments are made, they are firmly linked to demonstrable achievement rather than being based on costs incurred; and a significant proportion of the price is withheld until the contract has been satisfactorily completed.
We shall also continue to pursue collaboration where it represents the most sensible procurement course. With the rising costs inherent in new generations of technology, sharing the risks and costs with our allies is common sense; but we must do it efficiently. In this context, we place particular importance on the more open European armaments market now being established by the Independent European Programme Group. This open market will, however, not be designed as a "Fortress Europe"; it will be open to the defence industries of other friendly countries—in particular, those of our non-European NATO allies. The creation of an open defence market on these lines will help ease pressure on national budgets and provide enhanced opportunities for our defence industry.
As we made clear in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, NATO will be the bedrock of the defence of the United Kingdom and our Western allies in the future, as it has been in the past. We will keep up our large and highly-valued contribution to the alliance. NATO's success has been instrumental in changing the international environment. These

437
changes are setting NATO new and demanding challenges. The Government will continue to play their part in ensuring that the alliance tackles them far-sightedly and continues to build on the unparalleled success of the last 40 years. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cmnd. 675-I).—(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.14 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in the past our criticism of the Government's defence policy has been that it was overstretched and underfunded, mainly because of the preoccupation with nuclear weapons and Trident in particular. This made the need for a review essential. Its refusal has made it difficult to establish priorities and many decisions have had to be put off.
The Government have sought to escape from the situation by increasing funds for defence, and we welcome that. The Secretary of State said that what has been negotiated,
"ensures proper funding to sustain programmes and this disposes of talk of the need for a defence review".
I wish that were true. These comments indicate the depth of embarrassment that the Secretary of State has had in recent years at being criticised by almost everyone interested in security and defence—academics, defence correspondents, politicians and, indeed, the Defence Committee of another place. However, he has already discovered that what he has done has not quelled that criticism.
Indeed, even the Government's friends—to quote from The Times of 3rd May—said:
"Those who not long ago were forecasting a drastic reassessment of priorities are now confident that Whitehall can muddle through".
That is not good enough. What are the reasons for the difficulties? First, the increase in the defence budget is not as high as inflation. Secondly, real spending on equipment will be cut by perhaps 10 per cent. from £8·66 billion to £8·24 billion. However, prices for equipment usually rise faster than the overall retail prices index, which is now 7·9 per cent. higher than a year ago. We must also bear in mind that this is the year when the inevitable spending on Trident is near its all-time peak. Conventional equipment will therefore suffer badly.
The Navy faces a cash cut of £100 million, falling from 45·5 per cent. of budget to 42·9 per cent., and other services receive only a small increase. The Economist said that it will be impossible to avoid most services going without some things which they need. It added that permanent programmes will be stretched out longer than they should be, which in the long term will cost money.
Even more important, the estimated cost of 32 major defence projects has increased by more than £2·9 billion during the past year according to figures given by the White Paper. However, the White Paper confirms that the Army will get its seventh regiment of Challenger tanks, and this we welcome. However, the Government's spending plans will not, in our
438
view, provide the necessary equipment for the Armed Forces to do their job.
Of the White Paper in general the Economist of 16th May states:
"As usual the White Paper contains a mass of verbiage on defence policy. Although the White Paper is designed to be the main account of the government's security stewardship, and although it contains increasing amounts of data each year, it still does not tell the voters what they need to know; low will the cuts be managed, and how much will individual items of equipment cost?"
We all want to know the answer to those questions.
This is a particularly generous way of putting it—the answer is that despite the complacent remarks of the Secretary of State, he does not know the answer to those questions. There are two areas of particular concern, one of which has been mentioned by the noble Lord and the other relates to the Navy. The Government are committed to sustain the surface fleet at about 50 ships. Finance for the Royal Navy has fallen for the fourth successive year. This is reflected in the continual decline in destroyer-frigate numbers from 55 in 1983—not including those in for refit—to 37 today. I indicated in the last debate that at one stage last year only two-thirds of the number to which we are committed would have been ready to sail if there had been an emergency.
The British Maritime League has also been complaining. Like most of the Government's critics, it starts with a valedictory remark. Its own paper states that the White Paper,
"is as bland and uninformative as usual, volunteering nothing and assuring us that all is generally satisfactory across the defence field".
It was clear in the speech today that there was no criticism of any kind of the Government and that there is an extraordinary complacency with it.
As to the current strength of the Royal Navy in connection with the commitment to about 50 ships, the league states that,
"only provided that the ordering of new vessels (currently Type 23 frigates) is maintained at the proper level",
will the right number be ordered to maintain the figure of 50. That means that 2·6 ships will need to be ordered each year—a rate of ordering that we have never achieved in the past. The league points out that,
"an interruption of seaborne trade would be disastrous and disruptive of national economies. All military logistic support by sea is additional to the on-going demands of national economies".
To show the lack of ships for this purpose, the league points to the fact that, of the 44 product carriers registered in the United Kingdom and the 36 registered in Crown dependencies and dependent territories, only 46 are in the 20,000 to 60,000 dwt range. There is no hint of this failure and shortfall in the White Paper. The league held a seminar, which concluded:
"It is evident that the increasing lack of merchant shipping under the control of allied governments, places in doubt the credibility of NATO's current strategy of conventional deterrence. Even if the reinforcement of troops can be assured, the subsequent support of Europe with essential goods from overseas cannot".
None of these problems comes over from reading the paragraphs of the White Paper.

439
The view of the league is that the measures proposed to remedy the situation are overstated and unlikely to be effective. This problem is duplicated in the supply of American forces in Europe in times of emergency. There are not the merchant ships to reinforce and supply the troops in Europe, whether British or American.
The second matter giving ground for concern is manpower. Attracting enough of the right recruits proved most difficult last year. That is an understatement. The number of men in the 16 to 19 age group from which the services normally draw 75 per cent. of their recruits has fallen by 10 per cent. since 1983 and will fall by 23 per cent. on current levels by 1994. The Army, and in particular the infantry, is already suffering undermanning as a result. Each non-Gurkha batallion is an average 40 men under strength, and the deficiency is likely to worsen. This serious position should have justified the making of a much more generous agreement about the Ghurkas than the Government have done.
The services are considering a number of ways of making good the shortfall. They include attracting a higher proportion of women, as the noble Lord said, and recruits from ethnic minorities. The RAF will increase the number of women in uniform from 5,000 to 7,000. We are today discussing the discipline orders for the three services. He should reconsider the decision not to issue a leaflet setting out the rights and responsibilities of individuals in the services. Such a leaflet would encourage those who want to be recruited to the services and those whom we want to keep. The noble Lord must strengthen measures to counter bullying in the services. We know that bullying has diminished but we should get rid of it entirely.
Above all, we should be making special arrangements for housing both for existing servicemen and for those who leave the services. All these matters have a bearing not only on those who want to join but also on the well trained people whom we cannot afford to lose. Much more attention should be paid to our reserve forces, upon whom we are so vitally dependent in times of emergency. The White Paper does not indicate the seriousness of either of these matters.
However, these failures of the Government are dwarfed by another and greater failure: the failure to recognise the significance of the events through which we are passing, events so truly remarkable that they should present us with an unrivalled opportunity to shape the future—the break-up of the Russian empire, which has for many decades cast a shadow over the peace of the world. Instead, the Government—it was clearly evident in the noble Lord's speech—have continued to be intimidated by the past. They are unable to detach themselves from the need to have an enemy to hate and cover their inadequacies of vision by highly charged assertions that the enemy remains and we need to keep up our guard. Wise though this may seem to some people, it is becoming almost a preoccupation with the noble Lord and the Secretary of State. It is an alternative to creative thought about how we could help to develop a more harmonious world security.
440
The Government seem bent on presenting us with false options—whether it is in nuclear weapons, national sovereignty or other matters—instead of joining those willing to make imaginative jumps towards testing the sincerity of those whom we once feared but who were nevertheless once our alllies, or assisting them to make a successful transformation from the authoritarianism of the past to a more tolerant and democratic society. I believe that history will condemn this Government for failing to measure up to the opportunities arising from the greatest movement of history that we have known, which has presented itself almost unexpectedly and which could release us from the fear we have known in the past.
In this connection I commend the examples of both President Reagan and President Bush, particularly President Bush, who seems to have a much clearer vision than the Prime Minister. Does this therefore mean that there is no potential threat from the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries? The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies may have no intention of attacking Europe or NATO. I do not believe that they have. We have had assurances from both General Rogers and General Galvin that they do not expect a surprise attack and have not done for a long time. However, it is only prudent that Britain and its NATO allies should maintain adequate military forces capable of resisting such a potential threat. This means adequate spending on defence and also seeking disarmament through verified international agreements. In the past five years, thanks to the vision of Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan, we have had the first INF treaty. We should be building on that vision.
While we are a long way from a nuclear free world, we share the goal of the United States and Soviet Governments, and indeed of the United Nations, sharply to reduce all nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist we are all vulnerable. Britain should play its part in working for reductions and their ultimate verified elimination by the year 2000.
However, many people believe that Mrs. Thatcher does not want to give up nuclear weapons now or ever. Indeed, the development of Trident will considerably increase our nuclear capability. We discussed this only a week or so ago. The Prime Minister has isolated us from the rest of our NATO allies by insisting on the modernisation of Britain's and NATO's short-range nuclear weapons to keep them "up to date". But there is a genuine difference between modernisation and what the Government are doing. The Government suffer from a nuclear addiction, almost a "nuclearphilia", and the Prime Minister wants to keep her nuclear weapons for ever.
The Government have been the only NATO member pressing for early decisions on modernisation. What is clear again, however, in the case of this small nuclear weapon is that what the Government are proposing is not modernisation but enhancement. It is clear to everybody that the Government are out of touch with their allies. The Prime Minister went to Brussels with three main objectives; first, to obtain a specific commitment to replace existing missile launchers with a system with a range of 455 kilometres; secondly, specifically to

441
exclude negotiations over short-range nuclear missile reduction; and thirdly, explicitly to rule out any question of a third nuclear zero.
Even with the Government's extraordinary capacity for presenting every defeat as a victory, the Prime Minister failed in each of these aims. We warned of the danger of destablising NATO by pressing for the modernisation of these weapons. On 31st May the Independent said:
"Mrs. Thatcher's brave words in Brussels yesterday—"I am very satisfied"—masked a considerable defeat for Britain. Not only was the argument lost over short-range missiles but London had to suffer a last minute defection by a US administration which it had faithfully supported".
Unless the Prime Minister and the Government change their attitudes and respond to the changes in the way that the United States and Federal Germany have done and agree with President Bush that as freedom and democracy spread in Eastern Europe the role of NATO and the Warsaw Pact should shift from emphasis on deterrence to what is necessary for defence, they will be in danger by their intransigence of ensuring that it is the United States and Federal Germany that will be the real leaders in Europe.
Our aim is to encourage the reduction of the forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO and ensure that they are designed as far as possible for defensive purposes. The Government's attitude both in Brussels and Madrid had the effect of limiting our influence on the changes proposed. We should aim to remove asymmetries on both sides and thereby secure conventional stability in Europe at the lowest possible level. This is the real modernisation that is required.
I believe that we shall never be forgiven if we fail to take advantage of the opportunity given to us to secure a real European peace which can enable us all to live together without fear and to direct the immense sums that we have spent over the past 40 years on armaments to constructive and peaceful purposes throughout the world.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I shall begin with a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Irving, and to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. The defence policy that they have been advocating for years in this House has now been adopted by their party. It is not a very good defence policy, but what an improvement it is on what went before! Now we must look to the Opposition Front Bench for guidance as regards Labour policy instead of to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
A great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has just said is common ground between his party and mine. But he did not mention one point that I should like to stress: it concerns a matter for which the noble Lord the Minister is personally responsible. I am profoundly worried concerning the reports we get of the efficiency of the Procurement Executive. This year one report after another has come out with disturbing conclusions.
For example, in February the National Audit Office declared that the unreliability of our defence equipment was costing MoD more than £1 billion a
442
year and that the ministry "failed to take remedial action". The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence revealed that there is no monitoring by the Procurement Executive of the offset agreement which we made with Boeing over the AWACS deal for £1·5 billion. There has been no monitoring at all as to whether Boeing has been fulfilling its obligations.
The same committee criticised delays in the production of warheads at Aldermaston. The courts are now considering charges of fraud in connection with 20 Marconi contracts with the Ministry of Defence—20 contracts! This year the Public Accounts Committee has criticised "lax management" of the £6·5 billion estate which the noble Lord administers. The estate includes half a million acres of land.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is the report made in May by the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence which concluded that the Procurement Executive is so badly understaffed that it cannot police the defence industry adequately. It is 12 per cent. to 16 per cent. below establishment, which means higher costs, more and longer delays and higher risk levels.
Especially worrying is the departure of staff to defence contractors. I hope the noble Lord will reply particularly to this matter when he comes to wind up; namely, the flow too soon of too many people at too high a level from the ministry to the defence contractors. What is worrying here is not only the inefficiency that is created but also the obvious opportunities for impropriety. I hope the noble Lord can tell us exactly what regulations there are controlling this situation; how they are applied and whether they are successful. If they are not, I would like him to tell us what action he has taken.
The White Paper has nine closely-printed pages about the Procurement Executive. From beginning to end it is a story of unrelieved success. The White Paper states:
"Good management by the Procurement Executive contributes significantly to the ability of the British Armed Forces to meet our defence commitments … The task is now to build on the successes already achieved".
This will not do. There is no mention at all of these high-level reports—not gossip or newspaper reports but high-level reports. Therefore I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will give us a full statement. I, and I am sure the whole House, will want a full statement as to where matters have gone wrong; how the Minister proposes to overcome the difficulties and perhaps an apology for the inadequacy of the White Paper on this point.
I now turn to the White Paper as a whole. Like the previous three White Papers, it underrates the importance and the likely durability of the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. As a result it is too negative and too conservative. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irving. The theme is that which was advanced by the Minister at Question Time this afternoon, in that negative, combative and confrontational manner, "We want actions and not words". The White Paper states:
"These are early days and we shall be looking for hard evidence, in the form of actions rather than words, that the 'new thinking' represents a genuine and lasting shift in Soviet policy".

443
Certainly in my political life I have seldom met a politician whose words were followed so quickly and so faithfully by action as those of Mr. Gorbachev. Who else can we be thinking of—Mrs. Thatcher? Not at all. It is hard to think of a Prime Minister about whom so much can be said.
When Mr. Gorbachev promised to withdraw from Afghanistan I can recall the Government saying that they wanted action and not words. So Mr. Gorbachev withdraws from Afghanistan and takes a new and wholly positive attitude to Namibia, Kampuchea and the Middle East. The Soviet Union now actually pays its proper contributions to the United Nations—a change of extraordinary originality. The Government say that the Soviet Union does not fulfil its obligations concerning arms control. We have seen the pictures—and they are true pictures—of the SS-20s being destroyed stage by stage in obedience to the INF treaty. This afternoon even the Minister had to concede that at least a start had been made with the withdrawal of tanks from Eastern Germany.
Yesterday I saw a typical news item in The Times, and we get many of them now. It reported:
"The Supreme Soviet approved yesterday a proposal by Mr. Nikolai Ryzhkov, the Prime Minister, to discharge students before they had completed their two-year service … 175,000 students would be relieved of military service in the next two months".
That is not a matter just of words but of actions which can be paralleled many times.
The White Paper says in this regard that we want progress on the home front. It states,
"Progress in arms control has not yet been matched by comparable steps over issues such as human rights, equally important for the creation of lasting confidence between East and West".
But again Mr. Gorbachev's words have been followed by actions as regards human rights in the Soviet Union. Of course it is not a democracy yet and no one pretends that it is. But there has been a spectacular and important increase in the freedom of the media, the churches, for historians and for travel. The Soviet Union has had a very fair shot at a first free election and a first free parliament. Political prisoners have been released.
I find the attitude of the Government and some of their Back-Benchers quite extraordinary. They seem to hanker after the old black and white certainties of defence policy in the Stalin age. But we are now in a new age and the question is whether we should react to it and whether British defence policy in the White Paper and our budget should take account of it. Of course if one does what the Government constantly do and make a head count of the weapons of the Warsaw Pact countries that still shows a clear balance in their favour. That is so. However, it is also true that the unity, the motivation and the real war potential of the Warsaw Pact countries has profoundly diminished over the years.
How realistic is it now to include in the balance against NATO, as the White Paper does, the armed forces of Poland? The armed forces of Hungary and Romania are a threat not to the West but to each other. Further, what about the military value of
444
Soviet troops raised in Armenia, the Ukraine, the Baltic States and Georgia? Moreover, how far is the Soviet economy capable of contemplating war at this time?
How long would such situations take to reverse? It would not take long, I suppose, to overthrow the Gorbachev regime. But, after that, how long would be needed to reindoctrinate the peoples of the Warsaw Pact; to reunify them; to persuade them again that the West must be confronted and not copied; and to put the Soviet economy on a war footing? It would take a very long time, if indeed it was ever possible to do so.
The question is: should our defence policy reflect this new situation? The Government say, "No, it should not". The White Paper says, "No, we should take no account of it, and we should continue building up our conventional and nuclear capacity". On conventional capacity, the White Paper says:
"The considerably increased sums allocated to the defence budget since 1979 have enabled us to set in hand substantial enhancements to our conventional forces the benefits of which are now beginning to be seen and will continue to be felt well into the 1990s … We have charted a clear and consistent course for the past nine years. The task is to move ahead steadily on that course".
That is to say, there should be no change, or perhaps a small increase, in our conventional capacity in the years ahead.
As regards nuclear capacity, the White Paper calls for a huge increase in Britian's nuclear capacity. It calls for new, more powerful and accurate short-range nuclear weapons and for an increase, at least five-fold, in our strategic capacity. Thus the Government examine the changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and come to the conclusion that we should increase Britain's military capacity beyond what they thought appropriate in Brezhnev's day.
That could not be a greater condemnation of the conservatism, in the worst possible sense, and the conservative thinking of the Government and the Ministry. We are now spending 4·3 per cent. of our gross national product on defence. In the present circumstances, that is over-insurance. It is too much and should be cut.
The White Paper also takes too conservative and negative a position on disarmament and arms control. Not all Conservative governments have been failures in this field. For example, the Heath government and the Macmillan government had certain achievements to their credit. There was the Partial Test Ban Treaty; there was the Biological Weapons Convention; but nothing like that can be pointed to in the case of this Government, nothing at all.
The Government are in a good position if they wish to start negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty. The prospects are very good and it is now very much more practical than it was before. But, the Government do nothing. The Government are best known, as the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, said, for their lone rearguard fight in favour of more modern short-range nuclear weapons. Mrs. Thatcher has succeeded in going some way to ensuring a future for such weapons, at the cost of

445
straining inter-allied relations. Sometimes I think that Britain's most destructive weapon system is the handbag.
Fortunately, however, Mr. Bush, Mr. Gorbachev and Chancellor Kohl take a positive view, both as regards the political changes and as regards the prospects of arms control and disarmament. As a result of their work, and nothing to do with the Government, there is at last a real prospect of substantial cuts in conventional weapons in the near future. It could be possible to agree on conventional parity by the end of 1992 and a further 25 per cent. cut five years later. That should be our aim.
In the meantime, it is the view of my noble friends and myself that negotiations should begin immediately to reduce short-range nuclear weapons to parity by the end of 1992; and, in five years' time, when the second stage of conventional disarmament is achieved, to eliminate such weapons altogether.
It is good to know that the Government and their allies are making contingency plans covering types of equipment to be scrapped if the disarmament proposals succeed. But, let us suppose, as is possible, that political changes in Europe take a new and even more radical turn. For example, would the Government and their allies be ready if the democratic tide in Poland and Hungary seeped into East Germany? That seems quite possible. Mr. Honecker, who keeps the regime together, is aged 76 and in poor health. Moreover, Mr. Gorbachev has given no sign that he will go to its rescue, if the regime comes under pressure; indeed, rather the opposite. Discussion of reunification and neutrality is increasing in Germany. I ask whether the Government are conscious of that fact and whether they are considering it and making contingency plans with their NATO allies. What should our attitude be? Should we encourage this and the disengagement of the Warsaw Pact forces and the NATO forces which would inevitably accompany it; or should we discourage it and risk the Russians guiding the whole process? Alternatively, should we—and I suspect that this is what the Government are doing—shut our eyes to all those possibilities and wait to be taken by surprise?
Last week Mr.Gorbachev said:
"It is likely we will come to the final stage, the break-up of the military blocs".
What is the Government's view here? Is that also their long-term aim? That would be a good question for the noble Lord to answer when he replies.
NATO was never meant by its founders to be a permanent fixture. Indeed, if we had been faced by Gorbachev and Shevardnadze 40 years ago instead of Molotov and Stalin, it would not have been possible to bring the countries together in NATO and Germany would certainly never have been divided. The great success of NATO has been that it has now created conditions in Europe in which it is possible to foresee a common security system for East and West without confrontation and without military blocs.
The failure of this White Paper and the failure of the Government's defence policy is that, at this time
446
of enormous opportunity, when new thinking is not merely legitimate but obligatory, all they offer is the mixture as before.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, whatever else can be said about the Gorbachev era in the Soviet Union, it heralds a period of great political change; that is, not only in the Soviet Union but also in Eastern Europe and further afield, as we have seen in southern Africa and the Middle East. No one knows how far the radical reforms of the present Soviet leadership will go or whether they will turn out to be a success or a failure. But, either way, the political scene is altered dramatically. No longer are the countries of Eastern Europe in the iron grip of the Soviet Union as they have been for nearly 50 years. Of course they still live much under the shadow of the Soviet Union, but it is difficult to imagine the reimposition of iron control, except at a political price so high as to be self-defeating.
The failure of the economies of all those Communist countries forces them to look for other methods as a basis upon which to run their affairs. The self-evident success of Western countries by comparison causes those Eastern countries to look at the West as an alternative political and economic model which would enable them to raise their own miserable standards.
The development of events on the other side of the Iron Curtain during the past two or three years ensures, in my view, a totally new political scenario. There are all kinds of forms that that may take; but in whatever form it comes, it will be new. Therefore political change is a fact.
In contrast, the military scene has hardly changed at all, at least not yet. We all hope that it is going to change, and there have been some undertakings on their side that it will change. Of course we all hope that it will change for the better, and there are some cogent reasons to think that it will. But the reality today—the facts on the ground—are that the military imbalance still continues to move against us; to favour the East and disadvantage the West. It is very difficult to get that across to people because they are led to believe that "peace in our time" has arrived. It has not; not yet, at any rate. We shall all go on working for it, as we have for decades, until it does arrive; but in the meantime we have to deal with the reality as it is, and not as we would wish it to be, or pretend that it is.
In the context of this debate, the present dynamic and uncertain situation presents an unusual mixture of difficulties and opportunities. The military strength of the Warsaw Pact is still overbearing, ever present and must continue to be deterred by whatever mixture of forces is required. That necessity is in conflict with the general mood of optimism prevalent today.
That optimism, however refreshing it is—and it certainly is refreshing—contains two dangers. The first is the temptation to cut the defence budget ahead of a negotiated arms agreement, especially in the conventional field. Our recent experience with INF has proved the fundamental truth that one

447
must have something with which to negotiate if a successful agreement is to be reached. It would be sheer folly to indulge in any arms reductions unless and until the imbalance of the Warsaw Pact is corrected.
The second danger of too much optimism lies in the possible effect on the morale of our forces. That morale is high, and I support strongly what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about them in opening the debate. I am confident that your Lordships will want to support the Government in whatever steps are necessary to maintain their morale.
In that task, the defence budget as a whole is just as important as the level of forces' pay. I trust that the Government will take a clear and decisive view of their expenditure priorities. Of course the pressure for savings must be maintained; of course we must get inflation down; of course some programmes will have to be trimmed or reduced; but it is the priorities that matter. The Government have always, and rightly, given high priority to all the forces of law and order. It is vital that they continue to do that now.
Looking beyond the immediate future, it is clear that the political changes to which I referred earlier will open up a whole new range of factors to be assessed and taken account of by our defence planners. The exceptional simplicity of the cold war of the past 40 years has gone. New habits of thought must be created. In military terms, the cold war is still with us. It still exists, as the statement in the White Paper makes clear; but a lot else now exists besides which did not exist before.
The task facing NATO today is to discover a new flexibility in thought and action; to discover a new ability—on a scale not previously needed—to assess and respond collectively to the completely new political situation that is developing.
The new factors that have to be taken into account and prepared for range from, at one end of the scale, the possible failure of the present Soviet leadership and the much more aggressive line that their successors might take to, the other end of the scale, the achievement of a series of arms control agreements leading to less tension and lower levels of arms all round. However events unfold in the next few years, there are far-reaching implications for the defence forces of all the allies.
That uncertainty about the future is itself another new factor, and the alliance must adjust to it while remaining united. It is much easier for an alliance of 16 independent and highly individualistic nations just to carry on as before; but that may very soon not be an option. For example, 10 years ago I remember sharing with General Rogers, when he was SACEUR, my belief that, if the alliance had been able to start again with a clean sheet at that time, it would have been possible to deploy our joint forces more efficiently. That was because circumstances had changed substantially in the intervening 30 years. But of course the political complications of even contemplating such a change made any idea of it
448
impractical and of course unwise and not be to be considered. Today I do not think that such arguments serve us any longer.
We are in a situation that is rich in opportunities for creating a lasting peace. If we play our cards right, if we succeed in negotiating an arms deal on conventional weapons and after that a series of other arms deals with verification and the rest, if the imbalance in forces is corrected and if the Gorbachev reforms develop over the next few years, as looks quite probable—if all that happens, the world will look very different.
A great deal of thought needs to be given now to how the alliance will handle that situation. It will raise all sorts of new issues for the alliance as a whole and each member of it. For example, in our case the implications are probably greater for the British Army of the Rhine than for the other services, and we need to be thinking about that now. So we have the task of preparing for what may well be a completely new era while never lowering our guard or allowing our deterrence to become ineffective. That calls for a very careful and thorough presentation of the scene as it unfolds to all our electorates; and that will call for a continuous and continuing presentation as the situation changes, with Ministers very much to the fore but others coming in too.
I should like to say here how very valuable I believe that General Galvin's contributions are. However the media decide to play it—we heard criticism of them at Question Time here today, as we have heard it on other occasions—the challenge for us is to retain the overwhelming support among our electorates for the maintenance of our defences at whatever level is necessary at the time. I have every confidence that under this Government that will be achieved.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, I found this year's White Paper and its predecessor well written, well presented and clearly laid out. I thought that the photographs were rather dull and hackneyed. They are never very good. It is a pity, I always think—I have said so in your Lordships' House before—that other great departments of state are not put through the discipline of accounting for their stewardship once a year. If they were, I do not believe that any of them would do it better.
I welcome and agree with the thrust of the first chapter, with its analysis of the past, present and future state of the alliance and the current threat. Some noble Lords who have spoken today seem to have the extraordinary notion that the threat has disappeared. I do not share that notion.
I found the essays on the philosophy of all those matters to be helpful, especially that on deterrence at the end of Chapter 2. I recommend that both the noble Lords, Lord Irving and Lord Mayhew, read it again. The importance there described of the regular modernisation of all our arms, both conventional and nuclear, could clearly repay further study.

449
We must be clear what deterrence is about. It is about ensuring that our posture carries credence in the only place where it matters, which is in the minds of our only major potential enemy.
I thought—a triviality perhaps—that the description of the size and scope of the exercise programme for all three services was very valuable. More could be made of this, rather on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Pym, has just suggested, in convincing the public and the electorate that our people really are on the job.
However, it will not surprise your Lordships, I am sure, to know that I found some of the content a good deal less than satisfactory. I noticed that in paragraph 302 it is once again claimed that there are 100,000 regular soldiers, sailors and airmen available for the ground defence of this country in war. I have said more than once before, and I say it again, Ministers must by now know that that is not true. There is indeed no useful manoeuvre force and literally hundreds of vital key points will be undefended. The people who will confirm what I have just said are the commanders concerned, who never tire of saying so.
Small numbers of the highly trained and versatile Spetznaz forces could create havoc among our essential communications, public utilities and our whole transition to a higher state of readiness, should that unfortunately ever be necessary. We need a small, lightly armed, cheap to maintain home defence force in support of the very small number of regular and reserve forces which will be available.
It is disappointing to read in paragraph 356 that no decision has yet been reached about the assault ships. It is over two years since the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, assured me in writing that the Government had decided to maintain an amphibious capability. Yet we read that feasibility studies are still being considered. Time is running out, if it has not already done so. I have no idea what the naval staff would prefer as a solution. But I know that the two ships "Fearless" and "Intrepid", which have done yeoman service, are now old, very old, and have always been extremely expensive in manpower. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will tell us when we may expect a decision in this matter.
I spoke several times and at some length in this debate last year about the numerical size of the destroyer and frigate force, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irving, gave a good deal of attention. I have contrasted the repeated claims by Ministers that they intend to maintain "about 50" with the realities. I must say again that in current expectations of hull life we must order two-and-a-half or three such ships a year if we are to maintain that number.
We see from the White Paper that only 15 have been brought into service in the 10 years since 1979. We also see that today, 13th July, there are only 47 or 48 available in various states of readiness, of which no fewer than 20 are fast becoming obsolete. Perhaps I may repeat that successive NATO supreme commanders and commanders-in-chief of our fleet have publicly stated that even if 50 were available, that is nothing like enough. I know, because I have
450
done it, that on any objective analysis of the operational tasks to be carried out for NATO—never mind our national out-of-area capabilities—it would demand no fewer than 60, and modern ships ready for operations at that.
I am concerned too about manpower for all three services. There are some alarming words about this in Chapter 5 of the Statement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has just drawn attention, and I warmly agree with what he said. I am particularly alarmed over the demographic trough to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made reference in his opening speech. There has been a reduction of 10 per cent. in the last five years in the pool of young men available and there will be a further reduction of nearly a quarter—23 per cent.—in the next five years. Those are very big slices in the number of people available. I very much doubt whether the remedies proposed in the statement will match that challenge. It certainly seems bizarre in these circumstances for the Government to have decided to cut the strength of the quite splendid Brigade of Gurkhas to 4,000.
These are inescapable facts, it seems to me, and with the added likelihood of reductions in conventional forces being required by negotiation, I support the notion put forward elsewhere recently that by providing very much increased fire power, numbers in the Army could be significantly reduced. If that were done, the diversion of manpower and the financial savings made could be used to increase the holdings in both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force which by general consent are now under strength.
As concerns my own service, the Royal Navy, these problems are exacerbated by severe manpower overstretch which has already had to be met by leaving complement billets in operational ships unfilled or filled by less qualified people. This is a truly vicious circle. Overstretch makes conditions of service so unpleasant that men are persuaded not to re-engage or, in extreme cases, to seek premature voluntary release. That creates a bigger shortfall, particularly of trained men.
Your Lordships may not all be aware that since 1969 each of the services has been reduced by about 25,000 men. This has borne hardest on the Royal Navy, whose establishment has been cut by 30 per cent. since 1969 and 10 per cent. in the last 10 years.
Perhaps the most alarming deficiencies in the whole statement are not at all disclosed in the four very short paragraphs about our merchant fleet in Chapter 3. I must tell your Lordships that these are both actively misleading and foolishly optimistic. Indeed, far from finding the signs encouraging, as suggested in paragraph 332, all the signs are quite the reverse. This point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Irving. The facts, which I obtained in a Written Answer in March are deeply disquieting. They deserve wide promulgation.
Since 1975 the number of United Kingdom-owned merchant ships registered in our islands has gone down from 1,600 to 400. Put another way, our share of world tonnage has declined from 4·6 per cent. to 1·2 per cent. What is almost worse is that in the

451
same period the number of officers in the merchant service has declined from 35,000 to 10,000 and the number of ratings from 51,000 to 18,000. In other words, the ships have gone down by a factor of four and the officers and men by a factor of three. If Ministers find this "encouraging" it is time that they came back into the real world.
What these frightening figures mean for defence—never mind the effect on our formerly great worldwide maritime commercial presence—is that, as I said last year, we could probably no longer mount even such a limited operation as that which recaptured the Falklands seven years ago. In the context of a war involving NATO, all suitable British-owned deep water general cargo vessels would be required to direct support of the Royal Navy and for Transatlantic reinforcement and resupply. All the cross-Channel ferries and coastal ferries would be required for reinforcement of Europe. There would then be no vessels of those types available for our economic or civilian re-supply. Even if ships from other countries could be bought or leased—a solution often offered by Ministers—there would be no British officers or ratings to man them.
Moreover, our recruitment and training base has been allowed to shrink to the point where it is difficult to sustain the numbers we now have, much less increase them. Quite apart from the effect which this all has on defence, which is the matter before us today, I wonder when, or perhaps if, the Government are ever going to overcome what another former Chief of the Defence Staff recently called their sea-blindness.
Perhaps I may leave the statement and make one or two remarks which I think are appropriate on the general military situation of NATO today and in the medium-term future. Following the 40th anniversary celebrations of the alliance and the dramatic proposals by President Bush at the recent meeting of the heads of state and government, I think there is something to be said. Although much has been done to improve NATO's stance in recent years, it is only too clear that much more remains to be done if our military preparedness is to meet the political requirements. They are not military requirements.
Perhaps I may read what SACEUR wrote two months ago:
"it is of great concern that in 1988 all but three of the 13 nations that take part in the Force Goals process failed to achieve even three-quarters of their Conventional Defence Improvements highlighted objectives".
That must be bad news for all of us, and we must ask why. Is it the smiling face of Mr. Gorbachev and his brilliant public relations offensive? We have heard this afternoon that it has sucked in at least two noble Lords. Is it a failure to understand that only the robust readiness of NATO has kept the peace for 40 years? Is it the quarrels about the modernisation of some nuclear weapons? Is it that the numbers of those of us who actually experienced global conventional war and all its horrors are now much diminished? I believe that it is a compound of all those, most of which were mentioned in the excellent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Home, in April.
452
I am quite certain that we should not be seduced into any slackening of our defence efforts, which could not fail at once to lead to a diminution in our security. It has frequently been said—it has been said this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I repeat it now—that not a single reduction has yet been made in Soviet military power, for all the declarations of benign intentions that we have heard from the Soviet President in the five years that he has been in charge. It would be the height of folly to base one's assessment of any threat upon intentions which may change overnight. I should have thought that recent events in China would have made that starkly clear.
I said last year that reductions in United States manpower in Europe were inevitable. They are part of the proposals made by President Bush. I do not think we should be too concerned over that. The American commitment to Europe is firmly ensured, not only by the large number of their troops and their families in Europe, which will remain, but by the identity of their interests and ours in what we believe is worth defending. Nevertheless, I should be happier if there were less talk about strengthening the European pillar of the alliance and more about actually creating one.
I do not want to go very far into the nuclear minefield which is so popular a topic for amateurs, but perhaps I may make three points. First, we must agree that any attempts to discuss nuclear and conventional reductions together are doomed to failure, almost certainly because one can never agree about precisely what equals what. Secondly, should sea-based tactical nuclear weapons ever come to be included in disarmament negotiations, as seems highly probable, I would not shrink from agreeing to their total elimination. There are several good reasons for believing that they may actually be an embarrassment to local commanders. They could certainly be removed by multilateral agreement without any diminution in our security.
Finally, I have no doubt that the line taken by the Government over the modernisation of Lance is absolutely right. Equally, I have no doubt that everything that the noble Lord, Lord Irving, said on the subject is absolutely wrong. I also hope that some of those who seek a nuclear-free Europe will soon understand that that has been the long-term aim of the Soviet Government for 20 years—and not for benign reasons. Double zero, or even more so the triple zero to which it might lead, contains the seeds of disaster for everybody. War, which today is almost impossible, would instantly become possible once again. Moreover, if there were another conventional war in Europe, with the balance of forces which exist today, we should almost certainly lose it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall take up later one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. I wish to address myself more to the context than to the contents of this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates. The main element of that context at present is NATO's new comprehensive concept. That is a good and encouragingly German name. May it serve as a permanent gravestone for

453
Anglo-American reductionist pragmatism in the field which above all others in the world today requires the broadest overview, that of arms control.
The context of that document, and the context of everything we do these days, is President Gorbachev, as every speaker so far has pointed out. The press is still dominated—though Western governments decreasingly so—by the notion that there is a propaganda war between him and us, and that he is winning it because he unscrupulously exploits the naivety of our peoples, which he can do because he can lie without being caught out, and we cannot. That is not the case. He wins, when he does, because he is an educated man speaking to increasingly educated peoples in Western Europe. I suspect it is a great relief to most Western Europeans to read, for instance, the words in his recent speech to the assembly of the Council of Europe:
"To do everything possible … in order that man may continue the role destined for him on the earth and perhaps in the universe".
He also said:
"In the present interconnected world, geopolitical concepts born of another epoch turn out to be just as helpless in real politics as the laws of classical mechanics are in quantum theory."
Unless a leader thinks like that, he can do nothing. I do not know if any of the leaders in this country think like that. They certainly do not talk like that, and I wish they would. Mr. Gorbachev knows some history. So do we. Not all our leaders in the West do. Our own Prime Minister has just suggested that the ancient Greeks invented human rights, that modern human rights began with that society. As many people know, that society was economically based on slavery and socially based on the complete subjection of all women except prostitutes. She also implied that our own Magna Carta was more of a landmark than the French Revolution. She might have remembered the splendid simplicity of the authors of 1066 and All That: "except the common people". Magna Carta regulated relations between the king and the barons.
This is not merely an objection about a fellow citizen. It is a matter of immediate politics. There is in the comprehensive concept a dangerous threat of insistence on human rights and individual liberty. I choose the word "dangerous" with care. In several places it subjects the willingness of the West to engage in far-reaching disarmament to:
"the individual's basic rights and freedoms … including the right of political choice".
Those are most desirable aims, as no one here would doubt. But they have never been achieved in Russia. In saying that we will not disarm until they are, we are asking the Soviet Union not merely to dismantle the Stalinist systems, as they are doing, but to stop being Russian. Are we really to say no disarmament until Russia becomes a multi-party democracy, or a collection of multi-party democracies? Are we to say: "No, such and such a weapon system will not be eliminated until the persons named on the attached list have formally deposed that they are satisfied with their freedom of political choice"?
That "linkage" was never proposed by the United States before President Carter, and has never been carried this far until now. We should be prepared
454
for those provisions in the comprehensive concept to be unwisely exploited by the US military-industrial complex. An aside: Article 13 of the concept requires the:
"basic human rights … to be anchored in law and practice".
Does that mean that the Government, the Prime Minister, by signing that, has promised to anchor our basic human rights in our law and practice? Does it mean that the Government will now do that?
The comprehensive concept has one other great defect. By confining all its fine objectives within the present framework of CSCE (the Stockholm series) and the large number of conferences which have now derived from it, useful and hopeful though they are, it in effect precludes naval disarmament. Navies have again and again been explicitly excluded from that system of conferences. The United States Administration has explicitly declared that sea-launch cruise missiles (SLICMS) are not "strategic", though of course they are to Europeans on both sides. That means that they are not considered anywhere. But if they continue uncontrolled, Europe continues at risk of total destruction by either superpower. The US Navy is still arguing publicly for its general exemption from the process of disarmament, and requiring our navy to parrot this increasingly silly theme. That is what "paramount loyalty" seems to mean.
Meaningful disarmament will not be obtained this way. President Bush announced a great advance in the US position in Brussels when he accepted that disarmament will not be achieved by considering a tenth of the field here and a tenth of the field there, but only all together. However, there is a real danger that this new understanding may be aborted by continuing United States unwillingness to discuss navies, that is, to discuss arms control comprehensively.
The Soviet Navy appears to be decreasing in quantity if not necessarily in quality. It has recently stopped all submarine patrolling off this country and off West Africa. Since 1986 only one Soviet submarine has been spotted in the Western Atlantic where they used to operate so intensively. That is estimated to constitute a 10 to 15 per cent. decline in "operating tempo" by the Soviet Navy. If any of that is wrong, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will inform the House when he winds up the debate.
To say this is not to suggest that Western navies should be reduced overall, or reduced to equality with the naval forces of the Warsaw Pact. The continuing and terrifying reduction i n British flag shipping, which the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, put to the House with such trenchancy just now, has been ably but not convincingly glossed over in the estimates statement. I shall go no further because I could not put the case as trenchantly as the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. I back him entirely on that point.
The more we hope to rely on conventional deterrence and the less on nuclear, the more we must ensure that we have credible capacity to protect transatlantic and cross-Channel shipping for reinforcement, for military supply and for civilian

455
supply. The noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton said that there was nil for that at present levels. We must insist that navies be brought into the framework of qualitative change and operational restraint which largely constitutes the CSCE system.
That special US aberration, the Forward Strategy at Sea, which involves tailing Soviet bombers through the northern seas in a fire-first mode—about which I have often spoken before—still goes on under the name of Forward Defence. It is condoned by the Defence Estimates Statement. Forward Defence is a name which smells sweet enough on land when it refers to the defence of the German people, but that is a borrowed sweetness when it comes to be used at sea. Admiral Larson, Deputy Chief of Staff of the US Navy, has said:
"Stability to the Soviet Union is having absolute predictability. To the USA stability is having the flexibility to deploy our naval forces in a way to cause our adversaries to be concerned about what we might do".
That is directly at odds with the comprehensive concept and with the Heads of State and Government declaration from Brussels the same day. Both documents repeatedly emphasise predictability, and that statement ought not to have been made. All NATO's bona fides are at risk from senior officers thinking and speaking in this way, contradicting their own President.
A related problem is the hitherto secret NATO rules that, if there is an apparent air threat, the United States Air Force reacts first. That is a problem because the US Air Force, with what its own Vice-Commander in Chief in Europe, General Rees, has called its "imperative" need for a contuining "capability" for "offensive action", and with its deep interdiction raids, possibly nuclear, is not at the moment a stabilising force. The comprehensive concept requires that it should be a force for stability, predictability and transparency.
I come now to the Prime Minister's beloved Lance replacement. How that sticks out in this document. The paragraph concerned would be understood even by a Martian as typical examples of King Charles's Head drafting. One can hear in the very wording the exhausted sighs of the all-night negotiators: "Oh, all right, let her have it". There is no military need to replace Lance by something with higher yield and longer range, or possibly to replace it at all. The world is full of a number of weapons systems—why the fuss? What is needed is the elimination of imbalances; in Mr. Gorbachev's words:
"and I mean all imbalances".
That is best done by reductions, not by increases.
As usual, the manner of the Prime Minister did as much damage as the matter, if not more. What is the point of those gruesome attacks on the Continentals for the sins of their fathers? Do they have to remain frozen in attitudes of passionate thanks to us for having restored their liberty, when they so cravenly cast it away, for another 40 years? Is it still West Germany's duty to remain divided and obediently to act as advanced munitions depot and decoy for the Atlantic democracies, of which we are the least democratic?
456
Still, the comprehensive concept itself is a worthy document and goes a long way towards being adequate to the times. The very phrases,
"just and lasting peaceful order in Europe",
and,
"unnatural division of Europe and particularly Germany",
may sound bland, but they are an achievement. They override any particular insistencies, and they will not be forgotten.
Like many noble Lords, I see much hope in President Gorbachev. I was non-plussed by the flag-waving, the arm-waving, of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, at Question Time today when he pointed out the well-known facts that Mr. Gobachev had not done various things which he had not undertaken to do whereas, on the other hand, he had done certain other things which he had undertaken to do. One cannot blacken a man by pointing out that he has not done a thing that he has not said he would do. What is the point of that? It cannot be that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, wishes the House and people to believe that Mr. Gorbachev has undertaken to reduce tank production. If it is not that, what can it be except a wish to queer the pitch on behalf of this country for the future disarmament process in general?
I repeat; I see much hope in Mr. Gorbachev. We must never forget his vulnerability. He is partly in our hands. I see more hope in President Bush than in President Reagan. Although he does not have Mr. Gorbachev's imagination and although he, like Reagan, tolerates boors and numbskulls in his Government and embassies, yet he showed at Brussels a stubborn constructiveness which, even if belated, could serve the world well. I hope that he is not tempted today to stir up trouble in Eastern Europe. It took a long time and considerable difficulty for us to dismantle the British Empire when we had to. If the process is moving in the right direction in the Soviet Union, let us encourage but not frighten the horses.
I wholeheartedly welcome the recent activism of Mr. Genscher in Germany. Europe needed that, and it was skilfully and determinedly done. In France and Italy the Governments are unspectacularly but well prepared for the new civilian Europe as it seeps into existence through the manifold channels of diplomacy and international organisation. Let us, here in our island, not lag.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I shall be brief, first, because so many who have spoken and will speak in the debate know so much more than I do about defence matters as a whole; and, secondly, because I have an inescapable engagement this evening which may mean that, if the debate is prolonged, I shall not be in my place to hear my noble friend the Minister reply. If that happens, I hope that he and the House will accept my apologies and forgive me.
I shall confine myself to one subject. I find that I am the third speaker in a row to talk about it. The noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, referred to it briefly, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, at some length and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton,

457
at considerable length and with great force. However, I make no apology for returning to the subject which causes me and so many other people so much anxiety; namely, the continuing decline in the size of our merchant fleet and the number of officers and men to man it. I hope that the fact that so many speakers are talking about it this afternoon will bring home to my noble friend and his colleagues how much it exercises our minds and how keen we are to see more being done than is the situation at the moment.
This subject is raised year after year; and I regret to say that year after year we are met with what I can only call government bromides. Last year in this debate my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, replying for the Government, brushed aside our anxiety with such phrases as, "We are introducing a number of measures to help" and, "We shall continue to do whatever is necessary". This year, the defence White Paper states that:
"the Merchant Fleet is at a level that is still generally above that needed to meet the wartime needs of the armed forces".
If my noble friend the Minister believes that, he is the only man whom I have met who does. Last month, I attended a NATO conference in the United States called SEALINK—a very appropriate name. It was organised by the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, Admiral Frank Kelso. We were addressed by a number of the most senior figures in NATO—the Secretary-General, Doctor Manfred Woerner; the Chairman of the Military Committee, General Wolfgang Altenberg; the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic himself; the United States Deputy Secretary of Defence, Mr. Richard Atwood; and Admiral Isaac Kidd, a previous Supreme Allied Commander.
Every one of those speakers referred to the absolute necessity, in the event of conflict in Europe, of having enough ships to bring vast quantities of men, munitions, armaments and supplies of all kinds across the Atlantic, and expressed severe doubts about whether we could do it even today with the ships available.
The Secretary General of NATO said that our ability to resist aggression was totally dependent on our ability to reinforce by sea. General Altenberg quoted the Supreme Allied Commander Europe as saying that he could fight for only 10 days without massive resupply across the Atlantic. Admiral Kidd pointed out that we could not rely on levitation to get supplies forward. Mr. Atwood, the United States Deputy Secretary of Defence said that if the numbers of American troops stationed in Europe is reduced—as seems quite probable—that will serve only to increase the need for even more ships.
The Government simply cannot disregard what men such as these are saying. After all, they are the people who will do the work if the worst came to the worst. And yet what is happening? One has only to look at the table on page 7 of Part II of the defence White Paper in order to see the answer. Steadily, year after year, the number of merchant ships available for defence purposes has been going down in every category. No—I am wrong. This year the number of tankers has gone up, but only, I see, by including in the total chemical tankers which could, it says, be used for carrying not oil but oil products.
458
As for the category called "break bulk cargo ships—the familiar cargo ships carrying anything one wants in the hold—I see that most, which must mean more than half, are "short sea vessels". What is a "short sea vessel"? Basically, it is a coaster, or one that plies backwards and forwards from here to France or Holland—not the sort of ship in which I would wish to cross the Atlantic very often; and, even if I did, it would not carry very much.
Our lack of ships is illustrated, perhaps inadvertently, in the White Paper itself. On page 27 of Part I appears a pretty picture of two ships being refuelled from a tanker during exercise TEAMWORK '88 last year. One is a warship, the other a chartered merchantman. The warship is HMS "Intrepid", a Royal Navy assault ship; the merchantman is Norwegian! Good heavens!—do we not have enough ships for exercises? What on earth will happen if we find ourselves in conditions of war?
The other table on page 7 of Part II, relating to the manpower available for the merchant fleet, makes even more depressing reading. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, referred to the number of officers and men having decreased every year for all the years given in the White Paper. I find the most alarming figure of all one that he did not mention; namely, the number of cadets. Seven years ago, there were 4,000 cadets. In 1988, there were 400. Who on earth will man our ships in the future?
All in all, I have to say that the position is far from reassuring. There is grave doubt as to whether we have under our control enough ships, officers and men even for military purposes. Indeed, the White Paper itself on page 27 of Part I reports the view of the NATO Planning Board for Ocean Shipping as being that we have not. What is quite certain is that even if we could scrape together enough capacity to sustain military operations, there would be nothing left to supply the unfortunate civilian population of this country or even to keep going our essential industries.
We all hope that the threat of nuclear war is receding, and I believe that it is. It must therefore follow that any threat that remains must increasingly be of conventional conflict. At the conference to which I referred I noted down the words of the Secretary General of NATO. He said:
"Governments should know that maintaining effective maritime superiority is the best investment for securing peace".
I wholly agree with that statement, and I hope that the Government do too.
I know that my noble friend the Minister by himself cannot remedy the situation, but I beg him to impress upon his colleagues the increasing seriousness of what is happening to our defence capability and, together with the other departments concerned, seek ways of reversing a trend which is approaching the disastrous.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, this is a highly interesting and also a difficult time for defence planning. It is interesting because, as has been said, much is happening which may affect the general threats and balances in the international scene. It is difficult

459
because, although we can see things unfolding which ought to, and indeed may, require different solutions to our military problems, natural and sensible prudence and bitter experience in the past cautions us not to abandon the stability and unique advantages that we have acquired over the past 40 years by membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with its panoply of manifestly alert forward defence and burden sharing, and in the background the ultimate deterrent, as the Minister said, to man ever being stupid enough to resort again to a military option in Europe.
Moreover, although much that is happening is good, such as the undoubted easing of the East-West confrontation, not all of it can be described as comforting. Events in China have shown how quickly trends can change and there is some genuine concern as to whether Mr. Gorbachev can carry through his apparently very enlightened policies without incurring some reactions which would effectively put back the clock. In the longer term, depending I think to some extent on the success or failure of a more united Europe, it may not be possible to take for granted West Germany's key role in the NATO structure; and we might find our country's forward defence not so far forward as we had come to expect.
Moreover, outside NATO there is a great number of more indirect and subtle threats—emanating from the carnage in Lebanon, the impasse in Palestine, rivalry in the Gulf, support for international terrorism from both North Africa and the Middle East and general instability ranging from Latin America to China—which are capable of causing our Western civilisation plenty of problems, anguish and concern in a variety of ways. The kind of situation that could arise up to and around 1997 in the South China Sea is perhaps among the most predictable of a number of yet indefinable scenarios, all of which could call for some kind of military deployment over the next two decades, whether it be prophylactic, pre-emptive or even in extremis reactive.
So however high our hopes, all this calls for the continuation of balanced and all-purpose forces, capable not only of operating on the Continent and its surrounding seas, to maintain a prudent albeit perhaps changing balance of power, but also of reacting outside NATO to the unexpected emergencies affecting British and European interests with which our history has invariably been punctuated.
It may also call for a somewhat different method of funding defence. With the threat becoming more nebulous and diverse and without the discipline imposed on the Treasury by, for instance, NATO's 3 per cent. real growth figure, adopted by our governments from 1978 to 1985, the funds available to defence are bound to go down in real terms, despite the fact that the increasing sophistication of equipment and higher costs of manpower have demanded at least a zero growth in real terms from a higher start point long since abandoned.
Noble Lords have only to remember—not from personal experience of course—what happened to
460
the British Army between Waterloo and the Crimea and again to the Armed Forces in the 1920s and 1930s, to realise that once the tap is turned off it never gets turned on again until it is too late. The only sensible way to look upon defence is as an insurance policy not only against the more obvious and urgent threats but also against the less expected but still possible ones, just as we have to do in our homes and businesses. We often find the money for the premiums difficult to raise and compromises have to be made. But the premiums are invariably related to the value of the assets that we want protected and the scale of the loss that we would incur if things were to go wrong. So, I think, should it be in defence, with a finite percentage of our gross domestic product—possibly around 5 per cent. to 5·5 per cent.—allocated for this vital insurance. When the country's GDP rises there would be both the availability and the need for somewhat higher premiums, and vice versa.
In the past our defence expenditure has been well over 5 per cent. of GDP, at one time rising to about 6 per cent.—in comparison of course with the Soviet Union's figure of 11 per cent. to 12 per cent. But recently we have dropped significantly below the 5 per cent. figure, which is likely to do down even further, as with all other public expenditure. Yet with that declining figure and however much we seek cost-effectiveness, it will be extremely difficult to maintain high quality, well trained and mobile Armed Forces capable of dealing with both sophisticated threats and unexpected emergencies, as we had to do, and indeed did do, by a very narrow margin in the Falklands.
But even with more stable and predictable funding we must consider carefully how much of our resources we need to maintain in the nuclear field. As I said two years ago, by assessing carefully what we really need these weapons to do, there is scope for reducing further the overkill situation that has existed until recently, rather than going on working from a start point of, "We are here, because we are here, because we are here".
To my mind there are still good and sound arguments for retaining some nuclear weapons for one purpose and one purpose alone—that of ensuring comprehensively that a military option would never be resorted to in Europe and that no one else would ever threaten or use first a nuclear weapon against us. For that reason some effective and largely invulnerable submarine-launched weapon such as Trident remains, in the language of Which? magazine, "the best buy". So long as an adversary has a suspicion that under certain circumstances highly disastrous to you, you might just use those weapons, that would almost certainly suffice. Whether one needs any further nuclear weapons to manifest the link between any conventional resistance and the threat of a possible strategic response, so that no opponent could imagine the feasibility of a conventional military option without incurring nuclear and therefore quite unacceptable penalties, is a more difficult question.
Flexible response in nuclear terms has been described as a ladder, but one which nobody knows where you will get on or where you will get off. It

461
certainly has never meant that you must necessarily get on at the lowest rung. For most military men the concept of a coherent tactical nuclear battle is fairly incomprehensible (either for attacker or defender) and since such weapons even with modernisation, would inevitably fall on some German territory, their authorisation would be even more difficult than most.
Personally therefore I was somewhat surprised at all the fuss about the modernisation of so-called tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. I am relieved that the subject has now been diplomatically kicked where it belongs—into the long grass of the status quo, merging into the mutual force reductions, where it will almost certainly resolve itself. If you must have a bridge weapon which puts the link between conventional resistance and nuclear resolution beyond all doubt—and a case can be made for it—there are other weapons which to my mind would fit the bill better and would not have the same connotation to West Germany, such as an improved air-delivered weapon for the Royal Air Force. Together with a dual capability, they would give us all the flexibility that we needed, not only in the interdiction and sub-strategic fields, but also against lesser nuclear powers whose threat one day just might need resisting.
We must assess how much we can afford to lock up in the nuclear field rather than in areas that both enhance the flexibility and mobility, and multiply the fire effectiveness of our conventional forces. My noble and gallant friend Lord Hill-Norton has mentioned some of the areas where these resources are badly needed.
Much the most serious question facing the Armed Forces—and which the White Paper skirts around with a bare two paragraphs devoted to it (paragraph 508 and 509) which are both misleading and totally incompatible with one another—is the manpower problem. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, have mentioned it. The problem arises partly from the demograph trough, which is relevant, but also from the inability of the Armed Forces to hold the manpower that they have recruited and trained with the result that they would now have to recruit more than they would otherwise have to do from a shrinking pool.
There are a number of reasons why young men are inclined to leave the service prematurely. The urgency of defence is perceived by the public to be less than it was, and the variety and interest of a military career—although still very much there in my opinion—is thought by some to be not as great as it was. It certainly requires greater effort and imagination in training, both collective and individual, to bring it about. There are now greater opportunities in civil life for skilled and reliable manpower for which the services are renowned.
It is therefore more important than ever that the Government are seen by the Services to be a good employer who is prepared to make service to Queen and country—often under difficult, arduous and hazardous conditions, with necessarily long periods of separation, or at other times with wives not being able to work—positively rewarding in financial and
462
family terms and in comparison with what servicemen can expect outside. It is in this area that over the past three or four years there has been a steady and significant erosion of both pay and allowances.
When the Government came to power in 1979, they made great play of getting Forces' pay right, a process already started by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. When they did do so in comparison with responsibilities outside, the manning situation was transformed, both in terms of recruiting and retention. The Services became fully up to strength over the Falklands crisis and beyond. However, since those days, and in particular in the past three years, there has been a steady erosion of comparability in terms of the national average. The X factor, which was meant to compensate for the exigencies of the Service and to bring the Servicemen comparability-plus, now means relatively nothing. Allowances have been whittled away in a number of areas. It has greatly decreased the incentive to serve and face the tempo and rigours of military life, such as living for up to three months under water in a nuclear submarine, or perhaps spending 12 years on consecutive service in Germany with frequent periods of family separation. We now hear rumours that the Treasury is proposing that the troops in Northern Ireland should be charged for their accommodation. That is quite unheard of on active service.
Perhaps the most serious weakness in the Ministry of Defence's employer's measure, and the one I still submit has the greatest influence on the premature voluntary release figures, is in the field of housing, and the disadvantage at which servicemen and women and families find themselves in relation to the housing market. As I suggested in a Starred Question in May, what is so badly needed now—and indeed it has been for the past 10 years—is a proper house purchase scheme which would allow for Servicemen and women to save for a house towards the end of their service in a tax effective way without having to buy one prematurely when, because of service abroad, it is not possible properly to look after it, and while they are rightly being encouraged to live in Government accommodation near their place of work.
In answering my Question, the Minister made much play of the steps that the Government were taking to sell surplus married quarters to service people. However, after considerable research I find that at best it is only a peripheral measure and that it is not really working. Certainly it is not working to the extent of housing the considerable number of Service people who find themselves homeless at the end of their service and yet cannot be accommodated by local authorities. Such homelessness at the end of faithful service is hardly an incentive to stay in the service in the first place. There are many other examples where the erosion of allowances and lack of proper employer measures are encouraging good men to leave the Services. It is sad that excellent Back-Bench efforts in another place as yet have got precisely nowhere.
It is indeed so sad that this Government, having done so much for defence—and for whom

463
incidentally the Services themselves have done so much—seem to have lost interest in taking on the Treasury to achieve the comparatively small amount of resources that are needed to establish their position as good employers. I hope that they will do better in future because if they do not, even with the maximum of help from the Brigade of Gurkhas, and certainly not the minimum of 4,000, and from the Women's Royal Army Corps, they will soon be unable to man all the volunteer forces required by our current commitments, let alone any emergencies.
In the infantry alone, we are the equivalent of two battalions short on current requirements, to say nothing of the acute shortages of every kind of specialist. The battalions have a totally inadequate establishment of three companies and only 650 men. Military historians in your Lordships' House will recall that one of the main reasons that Ludendorf advised the Kaiser to sue for peace in 1918 was that the establishment of the German infantry battalions had sunk to 650 men.
Without the men, any discussion on strategy becomes academic, for the only alternative to volunteer service is some form of compulsory national service and I think that most of your Lordships will agree that that is hardly a political option.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, there sometimes seems to be an element of consensus in these debates. There is an element of thought that in any event we need to be armed to the teeth, the only difference being whether those teeth be nuclear or conventional teeth. I bring to the debate—and I think that it accounts for the departure of a number of noble Lords—a rather different view; namely, that we do not need to be armed to the teeth in any event, nuclear or conventional.
However, I am bound to admit that the current statement that we are debating differs and moves a little in the direction that I regard as right. It does not concentrate exclusively on the minutiae, the details, as to whether this, that, or the other is the right way. It recognises for the first time the profound change in the world situation exemplified by the arrival of Mr. Gorbachev on the scene. The statement recognises the fact more fully than did the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his opening statement, although he referred to it in passing.
Even in the statement the recognition is only of a token nature. There is no responsive movement in the British attitude or policy in NATO. Before I illustrate that point I should like to emphasise that I said "exemplified" by Mr. Gorbachev quite deliberately. He is in fact not only an individual phenomenon but the exemplar of a profound change which is taking place throughout the Soviet Union, in different ways, and at different speeds throughout the European quasi-Communist states.
China is quite a separate case. It always has been and always will be. The chiefs of staff would do well to recognise that important fact. The brutal suppression of the Chinese student movement—and,
464
alas, student movements customarily fail—is no excuse for continuing to treat the Soviet Union as the enemy. There is no justification for sustaining and extending nuclear weaponry—as indeed the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, suggested—on the assumption that we must arm up to the eyes to keep the Russian hordes at bay. I see that I have gone beyond the teeth to the eyes.
I heard an American NATO general recently on television—I forget his name—but there was an alarmingly paranoic element in his attitude. I hope that President Bush will convey to this general that this kind of carry-on is incompatible with the realities of 1989 and with what he himself is saying.
In its quieter way the defence statement is equally obsessed with yesterday's military strategy. For examply, it assumes a European war. That is the basis of the defence statement. That assumption has been implicit in much of what has been said here this afternoon. It spells out in paragraph 113 and elsewhere the various channels which swallow up the vast burden of expenditure we sustain all the time, in the light of that incredible assumption.
Thousand of people spend their lives all over this country, in Europe and in other parts of the world in the belief that a war, rather like the last one, is likely to take place. That assumption is implicit in much of what has been said this afternoon. But if they do not believe it, they have to act as if they did believe it. That is dangerous as well as ludicrously expensive. It is also a diversion of good brain power to unproductive ends to say the least.
As the American academic Colonel Summers has pointed out in the Atlantic Monthly and also in the Guardian, the nuclear threat is a bluff which, if it is called, would be revealed as a threat to commit suicide. As an even more distinguished military man, Lord Mountbatten, argued a long time ago, the nuclear weapon is not a credible weapon of warfare. It will only be used either as a result of an accident or by a lunatic, so it would be much safer to be rid of it. But the statement says at paragraph 119:
"NATO will be the keystone of the defence of the United Kingdom and our Western allies in the future as it has been in the past".
That means nuclear NATO, as Mrs. Thatcher makes clear every time she brings her powerfully simplistic mental processes to bear on the subject.
I have here a different document. It is called Meet the Challenge—Make the Change: A New Agenda for Britain. Its highlighted conclusion on the same subject as we have been discussing is that we must maintain our vital contribution to NATO through the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the British Army of the Rhine. My noble friend Lord Irving spelt out some support for that view. But that is not the real conclusion of the document. The real conclusions seem to me to be bedded down in the smaller print. For example, on page 55 it says: we look forward to a time when suspicion and tension between East and West will be sufficiently dispelled for both NATO and the Warsaw Pact to be simultaneously dissolved.
That gets down to issues in a way in which the statement does not. Although in its preamble that is

465
what the statement apparently seeks to do, it does not really deal with that fundamental kind of issue. I think it is appropriate that it should do so. The rest of that page in this document along with pages 86, 87 and 88 are devoted to disarmament proposals both unilateral and multilateral culminating in the sentence which I believe ought to have been highlighted because I believe it is the important sentence:
"We shall work to achieve a nuclear free Britain as part of a nuclear free world".
That seems to me to be the real message of the Labour Party document.
The highlighted statement about contributing to NATO is one which has been made hundreds of times by every platitudinous conformist in the Western world. It sounds just like the Prime Minister. So where is the challenge? Where is the change?
It is in the analysis in this document, in the sentences I have quoted and in the unhighlighted sentence at the end which I shall repeat:
"We shall work to achieve a nuclear free Britain as part of a nuclear free world".
There is the real challenge; there is the real change.
The Labour Party document's analysis is quite devastating. It leads unerringly to the same conclusion as was reached by Lord Mountbatten and now by Colonel Summers. It recognises that Eastern Europe post-Chernobyl and backed by Gorbachev's Soviet Union is no longer a threat, if it ever was. Even that bemedalled warrior Brigadier Enoch Powell now says that he never believed in that threat and certainly does not now. When the light is seen, it is seen, no matter who sees it.
Because the building of the three Trident submarines will be well advanced by the time Labour comes into office, the report recommends that they should be commissioned because:
"more public money would be wasted by stopping their construction than by completing it".
This minor key decision negates the searching analysis of the Labour document and mutes the defence challenge of a report which is more comprehensive in its argument than anything the Government have put forward with the whole of the state machinery at their command. The impression has been given that the change proposed by Labour from government policy in this area is a change of intent rather than a change of course which ought to follow from an examination which destroys the case for the existence of nuclear weapons in or around these islands and makes it clear that in the longer run civilisation and nuclear weaponry cannot co-exist.
As distinct from the Government's document, the Labour Party one is not a statement of policy, although it has been widely heralded as such. It is a series of recommendations to the annual conference of the party. As Mr. Attlee pointed out when he was Prime Minister, and even more emphatically in his book, The Labour Party in Perspective, the annual conference is the sole source of Labour policy. I hope that next October on this point the party will accept the review, but that it will do so subject to certain modifications, undertakings and understandings,
466
among them those that follow logically from the analysis contained in the review itself as well as from existing party policy.
I return before I close to the Government's statement. What is the source of the pressure which makes it so difficult for both the United States and Britain to meet Mr. Gorbachev half way? It seems to be more difficult for Britain, incidentally, than for the United States because the United States and its recent manifestations under Mr. Bush seems to be able to go further in that direction than we do under Mrs. Thatcher. The cause of the difficulty was identified many years ago by no less than President Eisenhower. It is the American military-industrial complex which, pushed into a corner, prefers the likes of Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter to the entire democratic process.
We are certainly in danger but the danger is not that identified in the statement before us. It is the danger of military government; overt or covert. The best military men know that in today's complex world military government must end in disaster. But when civil government fails to deliver the best military men are stymied. It is therefore in our interest that Mr. Gorbachev shall be as successful in his own country as he is outside. If he is not, then the Soviet Union is no more free from the danger of military insurrection by its own armed forces than is any other country.
It is in the interest of us all that the Soviet Union shall be united and prosperous, and the foreign and defence policies of the West should be modified with that object in view. As I have said previously, I believe that the President of the United States is moving a little in that direction. Such modifications would be in conformity with that enlightened self-interest about which we used to hear so much. There are signs that it is coming back into fashion. We need it most urgently and with the accent on the enlightenment.
It now appears that President Bush has also seen the light. But in this country it is useless to hope for a change from the lady who is not for turning. For the great change from preparing for war—nuclear or non-nuclear—to turning towards preparations for a real peace we need a Labour Government.
6.12 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I rise to thank Herr Genscher for his refusal to accept Mr. Gorbachev's latest offer; that is to rid Europe of short-range nuclear systems. I congratulate Herr Genscher on his insistence that there can be no negotiation on short-range missiles until there is progress on conventional arms reduction. In so saying he is agreeing with President Bush's statement of 29th May that the two superpowers should reduce their respective forces to 275,000 men.
At the same time I am worried by the tide of "Gorbymania" now flooding West Germany. There is the belief that Gorbachev is a better ally than Bush or even than our own Prime Minister. Also that the Warsaw Pact is now so flawed that there is no real need for NATO and no need, for sure, to modernise our short-range nuclear systems. But, more than that,

467
there is the belief that there is no need for American troops in Germany and no need for low flying aircraft.
Twenty years ago the Germans welcomed the thunderous roar of a low-flying fighter as evidence of NATO's security. Today that same fighter is hated. It is the deafening pollutant for which few perceive the need. The Germans point to Poland and Hungary as evidence of the fact that the Warsaw Pact is breaking up and the threat is receding. As for East Germany, it admits that the regime there is rigid and that it is unimpressed by glasnost and perestroika. But, as that country and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, have said, regimes can change. It looks forward to the time when the wall comes down. Then Germany might return to a federation of small states as it was before Bismarck, or it might even re-unite.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may disagree but in my book that is wishful thinking. The Russians would never accept a re-united Germany. Not even Gorbachev would allow the re-creation of a country that twice this century has inflicted wounds on Russia even more grevious than would be caused by a major nuclear exchange. Indeed, if Mr. Gorbachev did agree to re-unite Germany I forecast as a certainty that he would be sent packing to Siberia.
German optimism may appear to us to be ill-founded. Nevertheless, it is understandable because its position in NATO is so different from our own. We are bystanders and out of range of short-range systems. Germany is at the sharp end; it is the front line. Its hatred of a missile launched from one part of Germany to destroy another part would surely be echoed in this country if we had nuclear missiles based in Wiltshire and targeted on Kent. That is why Herr Genscher is being so courageous in insisting on keeping the systems.
Yet Genscher is not more representative of German feeling than is Gorbachev of Russian and Politburo feeling. Suppose that other counsels prevailed in Germany? Suppose that Germany left NATO? That would be the end of NATO. Conversely, suppose that Poland and Hungary left the Warsaw Pact? That would be the end of the pact. Indeed, Gorbachev has forecast the break-up of both alliances. Should that happen it would be bad news for us because our enemy would be knocking at our front door with his 51,500 main battle tanks, while our main ally would be the wrong side of 3,500 miles of Atlantic Ocean.
I have now read nine defence White Papers. The constant factor which runs through all is the mammoth imbalance between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces, as my noble friend Lord Pym has reminded us. But whereas the 1980 White Paper shocked and alarmed me, the 1989 paper seems relatively harmless—with the important exception of Russian chemical concealment.
As the same conventional imbalance recurs year in year out it appears to have less power to shock. It becomes old hat and I am tempted towards complacency as perhaps are many others. I notice that today there are only 15 speakers in the debate
468
whereas four years ago there would have been 40 or 45. But the only genuine ground for complacency would be a Russian troop reduction to 275,000 men. That would be a cut of close on 3 million men. It would be so massive that Russia would have an unemployment problem the like of which we have never seen in the West. It is a colossal cut that could happen only slowly.
Gorbachev has not yet made any cuts although he has promised them. It is true that he has removed some tanks. I take the point that during a Starred Question this afternoon there was a discussion about the nature of the tanks. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that they were aged machines whose main contribution to a war would have been to clutter up the battlefield.
So we in this country stay ever vigilant. We wish Gorbachev well but we fear that he is all words and not deeds. We also fear that he could be deposed by a hardliner, particularly if there was an uprising in Russia itself. Gorbachev, who is so popular in the West, is less popular in his own country.
We appear to be content to sit back and watch how things develop but not so the Germans. They wish to re-unite their country. They say, "Gorbachev is in power—for how long we know not—but while he is there we must use him". The 64,000 dollar question is: are the Germans using Gorbachev or is Gorbachev using the Germans?
There is one German idea that attracts me—the idea of offering free scholarships in the West to Russian students. A large number of young Russians would then become aware of the benefits of democracy. They would return to mother Russia and spread the word. That has already happened in the case of China. There were tens of thousands of Chinese students in the free world. They returned to their homeland, preached the benefits of democracy and went on hunger strike in Tiananman Square. As we all know, that ended in a bloody massacre of the innocents.
So the relevant question is this. If in the future westernised Russian students demonstrated in Red Square would the Politburo shoot them or welcome them? Would the Politburo say that those young people were the result of their own policies of glasnost and that they would wish to take on board their ideas? I earnestly hope that the Politburo would support the students. Admittedly, it would be a tough decision for it. Poland and Hungary are already fairly democratic and reasonably hostile and there is unrest in Armenia, Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and even in the Ukraine. It is to be hoped that the Politburo would see in the students the best way to defuse those tensions.
Therefore, I believe that we should offer free scholarships to young Russians. I would hope that Gorbachev is a man great enough to take up our offer and to grant immigration visas, thereby capitalising on the students' ideas. I also hope that the Politburo would be wise enough to keep Gorbachev in power.
Thus the students could be a catalyst to a sea change in Soviet policy. Thence could follow massive conventional disarmament and the destruction of

469
the entire Russian chemical arsenal. Then and only then could there be the de-nuclearisation of Europe. That would lead to a Europe truly united.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have already spoken, I also welcome this full debate on the Defence Estimates—and early on in the day's business, unlike previous years.
The quality, skill and dedication of our servicemen today is of the very highest order. When visiting troops patrolling the streets and countryside of Northern Ireland or watching seamen operating their ships in heavy weather, one sees what a wonderful job they do. One hears of many instances of valiant and courageous rescues carried out by the RAF rescue service. I must remind noble Lords that all that is done with a volunteer force of both full-time and part-time servicemen.
Today retention is one of the crucial tasks facing the Armed Forces. We are paying the penalty for recruiting brighter people to manage highly technical equipment. We have a generation of young servicemen who have been encouraged to stand on their own two feet and to think for themselves. Unlike other sections of society, there are no "go slows" or intimidation in the Armed Forces. Orders are accepted and carried out without question. However, the young man today looks for improvements in promotion, pay and prospects. He is no longer content just to sit and wait to see what happens. If his ambitions are not realised and he feels that he is not getting job satisfaction, he will, sadly, leave the forces and a replacement will be needed.
Overstretch is a major concern to all three services, particularly so at the middle level. Most servicemen enjoy a hard day's work and being pushed hard. We are fortunate in our Armed Forces in having one of the finest management systems in the world. As we have heard from the Minister, new systems are on the horizon which will be most welcome and, from what I have heard of them, cost-effective.
However, there is a limit to overstretch. Not only does it need respite, but there is need for recognition. Sadly, we lose high calibre individuals if they are constantly overstretched. The greater employment of women in all three services is a very welcome move. Commitments have been growing, and I honestly believe that there is a danger of losing job satisfaction and enjoyment of service life today unless action is taken to reduce them in the future.
Outside the Armed Forces allowances are designed as a package to attract and retain the right people. Those responsible for putting the package together take account of current circumstances and react accordingly. At present in southern England, among many initiatives, companies offer rent-free accommodation, free removal expenses and loans as part of their recruiting package. It would be totally unrealistic to suggest that such initiatives would be appropriate to the services. However, there is a need to make attractive allowances for the services and for them to act as an inducement to retention.
470
While senior officers of all three services generally see the rationale in the service allowance, changes introduced last year at the lower level have not been accepted so favourably. Many servicemen quite simply see the new rules as a marked reduction in their terms and conditions of service.
Concern remains about home ownership, as has already been extensively explained by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It would be inappropriate for me to say very much more. However, the problem is particularly appropriate to the Army, where over half of its members can be said to be serving abroad, if one includes Germany and unaccompanied tours in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, there is the need to support the policy of accompanied service; but, on the other hand, we must recognise the need for servicemen to get into the housing market. The situation is further complicated by more and more working wives seeking a more stable home in this country—which is understandable.
I sincerely hope that the Minister may be able to indicate whether the Government would be willing to have another look at the allowance package. Following visits to all the services, feel that that is causing a certain amount of irritation and uncertainty. I should also like to know whether there has been any progress made in the house purchase schemes put forward by the Member for Canterbury in another place and, as we have already discussed, by the noble Lord, Lord Bramall.
As one who has responsibility for recruiting, I greatly welcome the Government's initiative to provide more money for publicity and the intention to improve the effectiveness, as indicated in paragraph 515, of the estimates. I hope that that additional money will be well spent and will result in more recruits being provided for all three services.
Recruiting today is a very expensive and highly competitive business. One hears daily of new initiatives by industry in its attempts to attract the young, and now we hear of older people being recruited for the large firms in the South of England. That that is the way that things are going. As the demographic trough deepens and unemployment continues to fall, recruiting for the services is becoming very much more difficul1 and there may possibly be a case for easing the rules which prevent minor offenders from enlisting in order to give them a second chance of a service career.
I have put forward the suggestion of service youth training teams in the past and I make no apology for raising that matter again. There is already a pilot scheme in the North-East of England which is working well. I believe that, if properly established, it could be of immense mutual benefit to both the services and youth alike, particularly in the inner cities, by teaching skills such as rock climbing, canoeing and other outdoor activities. It would provide the much needed interface between the servicemen and the young, who it is so important to attract to service life.
In the difficult says of recruiting, the cadets play an extremely useful part in fostering the interest which young boys and girls often have in a military

471
career and which is so often eroded by the age of 18. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, the strength of the cadet forces has fallen away dramatically in recent months, and that is a disturbing trend.
One of the most important incentives in the Army Cadet Force is that skill can be gained in weapon handling. There has been an excellent advance in modern rifles, and they are being issued to cadet forces. However, for training evening by evening in their huts, the cadets must have a rifle which cannot be a danger if it falls into the wrong hands. I understand that manufacturers are advertising such a weapon and that the Ministry of Defence could procure the £10,000 needed, using funds underspent on other projects. To do so would be an excellent investment both in terms of regular recruiting and drawing young people in the formative 13 to 18 year-old age groups into the organisation, which does so much to turn men into responsible citizens. Can the Minister say why the Ministry of Defence is not procuring these excellent training aids? He may not be able to tell me now, but I should welcome an answer in due course.
The effects of retention are serious. Service recruiting is facing difficult times ahead. We are most fortunate in this country in having all-volunteer Armed Forces. Whatever changes in the future may bring about, our forces deserve our unswerving support, wherever they serve.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, nearly all noble Lords who have spoken have said that our forces are undermanned. I agree that our defence is only as strong and as determined as the people who defend us. People are what defence is all about. First, we are defending people. We are defending the people of Britain or, in the case of NATO, the peoples of the North Atlantic shores, against aggression. Despite glasnost and perestroika—as my noble friends the Minister, Lord Pym, and Lord Mersey have said—the threat to the West has not diminished.
Let us suppose a robber comes into my house to attack me. The first thing I do is to look around for a weapon with which to defend myself. I will snatch up a poker or a jelly pan or a handbag. All those items are suitable for defensive weapons. However, in themselves they are not weapons. A poker sits inoffensively in the fireplace waiting for someone to poke the fire with it. A jelly pan waits in the kitchen, its copper sides gleaming, waiting for someone to make jam in it. A handbag lies unwittingly in a drawer waiting to be stuffed to bursting with all the items that a handbag contains. They are all inanimate objects. Without a person to motivate them they are no defence.
Therefore, we must consider the people who make up the engines of war work. The men who drive the tanks, who sail the ships, who fly the aeroplanes, who fire the guns are our best defence assets. They are our treasure; but they are a declining asset. Fewer people are coming into the services. We need more. To achieve that, we must have better conditions, better pay and less sniping and whittling away of
472
life's allowances in a petty way. I agree entirely with all that was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby.
It is important, therefore—indeed, vital—if we wish to defend ourselves that we ensure that the interests of our forces are paramount so that they can make our weapons work. By all means let us have the newest, most efficient weapons; but let us bear in mind that without people to work them even the best weapons are just a heap of old iron.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister, and to other speakers, for the fact that I was not in my place when he opened the debate. In fact, I was chairing an important meeting of a sub-committee of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Before turning to more general matters, there are two questions that I hope the noble Lord will answer when he winds up the debate. On 17th October of last year I asked a Question in the House about whether or not the Government had yet devised an equitable method by which regular serving members of the Armed Forces would pay the community charge. I did not receive a very satisfactory reply. Since then, of course, the charge has been introduced in Scotland, where members of the Armed Forces who are not permanently domiciled there serve and are therefore liable to pay the charge. Can the noble Lord please say what progress has been made in deciding on this matter and whether or not the arrangements that have been made are regarded by members of the Armed Forces as equitable?
My second question relates to defence research. Will the noble Lord, in replying, say what measures the Ministry of Defence has taken, apart from the decision to set up a defence research agency (described in the pink insert on page 33 of the White Paper) to meet the recommendations of the report by the Advisory Council on Science and Technology on Defence Research and Development? In particular, can he confirm that the Ministry will publish its R&D data according to the R&D definitions of the Accounting Standards Committee?
I turn to more general matters. I share the view expressed by some noble Lords that the defence White Paper—which I note has now after some years in blue reverted to white: is there some significance in that reversion to a more dove-ish and less political colour?—although it is generous in words and figures, actually says very little and hardly anything new. In compiling an historical monograph I had recently to read through all the defence White Papers since 1945—rather more than those read by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. The contrast in size and real content between recent and earlier White Papers is stark. I suspect the influence of public relations experts.
My principal criticism of the paper is that it gives the impression that the eyes of the Ministry of Defence are firmly fixed on the past and that it is reluctant to face the difficult problems that lie in the future. Those problems arise from change: first, change in the political background against which

473
defence policy and the organisation and equipment of the Armed Forces have to be planned. The paper is extremely cautious in its approach to the remarkable change that has come about in the relations between East and West in Europe. The second major cause of change is the electronic revolution. The third is the forecast demographic change in Europe in the number of men available for military service, whether volunteer or conscript, over the next few decades.
I take these changes in turn. There is now no doubt that the Soviet Union has abandoned its attitude of miltary threat to Western Europe and wishes to reduce the size and cost of its armed forces to a lower level; and that there is a genuine desire on the part of both the Soviet Union and the United States of America to reach agreement that both should maintain lower force levels in Europe, both conventional and nuclear. However, there is justified concern about how successful Mr. Gorbachev and his government will be in achieving their aims, about the timescale over which that may come about, and about whether it can be done without causing serious political instability within the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. The future of East Germany is, of course, a potential source of severe tension.
It is therefore right to be cautious about reducing NATO's armed forces until we can see more clearly what the political effects of glasnost and perestroika are going to be. We have seen some of them already in West Germany. But what is absolutely clear is that the sort of threat we face from this potential political instability is not one which can be dealt with by a strategy based on the use of nuclear weapons. Statements like that in paragraph 108.c that,
"All nuclear weapons must be kept up to date if they are to provide effective deterrence".
and, in the green insert on pages 11 and 12, headed "Deterrence after the INF Treaty", that,
"NATO has to maintain an effective nuclear armoury at several levels",
are even more irrelevant to that sort of threat than they were when the threat was assumed to be that of either a massive or a surprise military thrust of Warsaw Pact forces into NATO territory.
In principle, I believe that NATO's policy of concentrating on conventional stability talks before it attempts to negotiate reductions in short-range nuclear weapons is correct, for, if an agreement is reached about conventional forces, land and air, which both sides accept as providing a stable military relationship between East and West, the argument for having short-range nuclear weapons of any kind and for relying on a strategy based on the threat of their first use, falls to the ground. Both sides in those circumstances should then be able with confidence to abandon first-use systems and reduce their nuclear arsenals to much smaller numbers of retaliatory systems, the function of which would be to retain the overall deterrent to war which the existence of nuclear weapons provides.
In the context, the Government's decision to replace the RAF's WE177 freefall nuclear bombs appears to me to be absurd. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he winds up the debate, will explain the
474
strategic theory behind the statement is paragraph 9 on page 12 that,
"The United Kingdom … maintain the independent non-strategic contribution without which the value of our strategic force, which provides a second centre for decision-making in support of Alliance strategy, would be seriously incomplete",
because I have never been able to understand the argument.
NATO's nuclear weapon policy has got itself into a terrible muddle. All logic pointed—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not here today, but in a speech not long ago he said much the same thing—to getting rid of shorter-range systems first, continuing the process begun by unilaterally abandoning infantry and anti-aircraft weapons and nuclear landmines, which the defence White Paper falsely claims as a past arms control measure. It was not anything of the sort. It was a unilateral abandonment of useless weapons.
There was a reasonable argument for retaining longer-range systems under the direct control of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, as a sign that American systems were linked to Europe to discourage the Soviet Union from thinking that it could use its nuclear weapons in Europe without risking retaliation by American systems. But the INF talks knocked a hole in that, as long as it was believed that land-based systems were essential to meet that need. The West Germans used to demand that; but now have changed their tune. The difficulty is that longer-range systems, if they must be land-based, have to be stationed in countries which do not want them.
The answer of course is to rely on sea-based ones. That is what our submarine ballistic missile systems are primarily for—the condition on which Polaris and Trident were supplied by the United States insisted on that—and not as an independent system.
The changed political climate in Europe demands a new look at the future of both our nuclear and our conventional forces. That political climate is bound to demand reductions in defence expenditure both by American and by European members of NATO. If we are to keep up our guard in a time of political instability, how are we going to cope with that?
This is where I believe that the revolutionary changes in technology come into play. As I have suggested before in this House, I believe that a long, hard look needs to be taken at the viability of the manned combat aircraft in its three roles of strike, reconnaissance and air defence, particularly in the air space over land. Modern electronic devices or electronically-controlled devices, whether on the ground, in the air or in space, already provide more accurate and effective means of carrying out those tasks while the cost of reducing the vulnerability of manned aircraft is constantly increasing.
I am convinced that a serious study of this subject is called for and, if its conclusions are what I believe they will be if it is truly objective, consideration should then be given to the highly controversial question as to whether we should continue to maintain a separate air force, with all its overheads and the complications in command which it involves.

475
But it is not only in terms of money that the pressures will rise, but in the supply of manpower. Technology can help in this field, as would a reduction to two services from three, but we shall have to go further than that. If it were not for the actual and potential commitment in Northern Ireland, the Army's organisation would be over-heavy in infantry, bearing in mind the great reduction in our ex-imperial commitments. New ways of making better use of human power must be examined yet again. A greater use of womanpower is certainly one of them. I believe that a more imaginative use of reserves is another.
I have in mind a greater use both of individual and of sub-units of volunteer reserves to train with and reinforce regular units in an emergency, rather than laying all the emphasis on trying to make territorial army units viable in themselves. The old army emergency reserve, which was swallowed up into the TA & VR in the reorganisation of the 1960s—totally forgotten when it was renamed the TA—was a valuable and highly economic source of manpower which exploited a man's civilian trade.
I hope that next year's defence White Paper will look more imaginatively into the future, which poses problems for the organisation and equipment of the forces which I feel are not at present being adequately faced.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I agree entirely with him when he said at the beginning of his speech that these Defence Estimates are based on the past; and on past thinking and a lack of imagination. I also agree with a great deal, but not all, of what he said about the new situation relating to nuclear weapons.
I wish to add one further thought to his speech. He spoke of the political changes and changes in military strategy. I believe that he might well agree with me that the changes in military strategy and weaponry are some of the factors which may strongly influence political change. It is on those matters that I wish to base most of what I have to say.
This document on the Defence Estimates has been described in a variety of ways this afternoon. "Banal", "trite" and "puerile" are the words that occur to me on reading it. The language that is used concludes with an apologia that is based on special pleading which is almost totally irrelevant to the situation that we face today.
Some of the pearls of wisdom that I have selected out of so many in the language used here are these. On page 1 we read,
"But we should be under no illusion about this new sense of realism; it is designed to serve Soviet interests, not those of the West".
Who on earth ever conceived that a national defence policy was designed to serve anyone except the nation concerned? On page 4 there is the following statement:
"The Soviet Union … Its proposals for arms cuts are not altruistic; they aim to improve Soviet security".
476
Of course they do. What greater truism can one invent than such a statement?
Again I quote this pearl of wisdom from page 49:
"All modern tanks are more powerful than older ones".
That is hardly a revelation of wisdom.
I believe it has been universally accepted this afternoon that we are living in a new international climate on our globe. It has been fundamentally changed. No longer are there invasions of Afghanistan or of Vietnam. We hope that there will be no repeat of what happened in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Suez. We hope that there will be no more bombing of Libya, although one wonders to what extent the Pentagon and the White House see their new role in this changed world in places like Nicaragua and other parts of central America or in terms of military support for Savimbi in Namibia. It is a changed world. Nobody can forecast how these changes will develop but we cannot stand on the sidelines and wait until they develop. We are part of them. The Defence Estimates and the defence policy of this country, especially in their relation to foreign policy, have an effect and will have an effect on the way in which those changes develop.
I suggest that two options are open to us in this changed situation. First, we can continue to be suspicious, as we have been for the past 40 years. We can continue to build our policy on rigid and unchanging minds; or, secondly, we can make a positive contribution to international trust and co-operation which for the first time for many years we in Europe now have the opportunity to do.
In opening this debate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, seemed to ignore a great deal of the new reality regarding nuclear weapons and the so-called deterrent. However, his own White Paper throws grave doubts on the whole argument about the use of nuclear weapons as deterrents. On page 4, the White Paper says:
"But while the West retains strategic nuclear weapons we must expect the Soviet Union to keep similar weapons in its arsenal".
Some of us have been trying to tell the Government that for the past 10 years or so. Is it not the height or depth of sterility that the whole of the White Paper is based on the supposition that we must keep and update all our nuclear weapons? Surely the answer in this White Paper is that, if we do that, the Soviet Union will do the same. That is hardly measuring up to the challenge of the new international situation.
The argument about the modernising of nuclear weapons, which has gone at least since the INF treaty, has divided those who are supposed to be our allies in NATO. The proposal is also highly unpopular in this country. Last September a Gallup poll showed that only 21 per cent. of those polled believe that our nuclear weapons should be modernised, and 71 per cent. consider that they should not be and that we should be negotiating further to get rid of them. That is the voice of the people. There are also voices from within NATO. Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany said:
"Let us take Gorbachev seriously. Let us take him at his word".
He went on to propound what has come to be known as the "third zero"—the abolition of all short-range

477
nuclear weapons in Europe. We know that in all the discussions over the past 18 months the British Government have stood alone in their demand that our nuclear weapons should be "modernised" and have not taken the opportunity of the INF treaty to pursue the cause of disarmament. That is the first option. Everything in this White Paper shows that the Government's mind has remained rigid and bound to the cold war of the past 40 years.
The other alternative—the positive alternative —puts disarmament as the first objective of foreign and defence policy. The object is to remove all nuclear weapons from Europe, at least by the end of this century, and to negotiate drastic reductions in conventional weapons. As the noble Lord, Lord Carver, has pointed out, there is a necessity on our part as much as on the part of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc to reduce armament expenditure and to use those resources for constructive and productive ends.
The argument whether we should do this unilaterally or multilaterally has become completely sterile. It is irrelevant to the present situation and to what lies ahead in the next 10 years. Either or both of those methods are needed as the opportunities develop and as we take our part in increasing and creating through our foreign policy those opportunities for disarming on both sides. However, I say quite clearly—and in this respect I no doubt part company with the noble Lord, Lord Carver—that the removal as soon as possible of all nuclear weapons and nuclear bases is crucial to allow for international co-operation in ecological, economic and social efforts. That is what the people of Europe are crying out for. Below that is the healing process between East and West on which it all depends.
That is what the people of this country are looking for from any British government. They can only judge and take their part as citizens if the information on which that judgment is made is freely and openly available. In this respect I should like to take up an issue which to the best of my knowledge has not been raised this afternoon. If our citizens are to discuss and to reach opinions on British armaments and British foreign policy they must have full information. As my noble friend Lord Irving pointed out in his opening speech, nothing in the document itemises how much will be spent on particular projects. There is no way in which Parliament can determine whether money is being spent correctly on these projects. But that is not so in every country.
I have looked through this document and I find that no provision has been made for the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. I understand that over the next 10 years at least 10 nuclear submarines will have to be decommissioned. I specifically ask the Minister: what will that cost? What will be done with them? Further, what will happen to the nuclear components of those submarines? What plans do the Government have for dealing with those nuclear submarines as they become obsolete so as to protect the people, and the environment, of our planet? That was the question which was asked by the House of Commons Defence
478
Committee only this week; but, there is nothing about it in this document. That is also something which is kept from the public.
One of the ways in which the Government inform the public, or claim to inform the public, is by what are known as the "open Government documents on defence". The Government continually boast that they provide more information than ever before. In 1981, 57 of those open Government documents on defence were published; but, in 1987 there were but two of them. That is the measure of the way in which information is being increasingly withheld from the public.
As I said a moment ago, this does not happen in every country. Let us take the case of the Montebello Conference. What happened in that respect? In this country we are continually told, and the British Parliament is continually being told, that no decisions were made. However, in the United States Congress was given a full and detailed account of all the weapons systems included in modernisation. The Dutch have had continual open discussions, interviews and debates on the same subject. Indeed, one could go on in that regard.
If the Minister would like to have further information on this matter, I suggest that he consults the excellent work carried out by the Oxford Research Group, in particular its recent publication which is entitled In the Dark. I shall take an extract from that document. It refers to the last time that the House of Commons debated the Defence Estimates and says:
"… on the 19th and 20th October 1988, the British Secretary of State for Defence said: 'European nations have a special role to play in the basing of theatre nuclear forces … As with other forces, they must be kept properly structured and up to date'."
Then we have the crucial sentence, which reads:
"Decisions on these matters will be taken as and when required, and will be reported to the House at the appropriate time'."
In other words, the decisions will be taken and then related to Parliament. However, many of them will only be related to Parliament if there are sufficient Members of Parliament to keep on questioning and requestioning Ministers in order to get the truth; that is, in order to get the truth from a government who do not believe in giving the public information.
I believe that the British people make two demands of their Government. The first is that they have a right—and indeed, they have a duty as citizens—to have available to them, and to be able to study, open and free information. That must be freely and constantly available; it must not have to be dug out from the dusty shelves of the Ministry of Defence or any other ministry.
Secondly, the people believe that the Government should be working towards peace (and the cold war was not peace) based on friendship and free from the menace of nuclear weapons—that is, nuclear weapons which every schoolchild knows about and of which many schoolchildren are still terrified.
It is only by ridding this country, Europe and ultimately the world of nuclear weapons that we can feel safe and be safe in this country. The British people, and the whole of humanity, depend upon our efforts to bring to an end the nuclear era.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, this debate comes at a critical time, with the whiff of disarmament in the air. But I wonder whether it will become stronger or whether it is only something designed merely to deflect our senses away from other more fundamental issues. I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between.
In defence of course prevention is much cheaper than conflict. But prevention itself is becoming staggeringly expensive to practise and we are feeling the pressures that it brings. To the Soviets at present I think that disarmament still means a way of changing the odds of the game to bring them more favourably into line with their long-term aims; that is, if they can play it on a gun-for-gun-basis, with no weightings applied on balanced reductions. To us it means reducing the threat, and that is something which is worth going for.
The White Paper quite properly points out that, if there is a new sense of realism in Russia, it is designed to serve Soviet interests and not those of the West. Therefore we must not be tempted to lower our guard without first seeing the balanced reductions. I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that that was a silly statement to make in the White Paper. But, as we heard on Tuesday in Question Time, nothing much has changed.
However many nuclear submarines have been scrapped, the Russians are still building them as fast as they can. That is what we must worry about. We must not forget that. Whatever is said in the White Paper about disarmament, what matters is the way that we arm ourselves to meet the threat.
I should like to refer to some of the issues which are now affecting us. But, first, perhaps let me say that I have had the good fortune of being present at the recent Army Oracle briefing in Germany, which is designed to show how equipment is used in the field and to find better ways of making it more reliable. It was a very successful exercise. I should like to congratulate the Master General of Ordnance, General Sir John Stibbon, on taking the initiative and on the way he put his message over that equipment reliability and maintainability now take priority. That was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred. He considered that the Government were doing nothing about this. But perhaps I may give him some assurance in that respect: equipment failures are now being studied and the results fed back into industry.
Of course there is a reporting danger which we must try to avoid. When I was in Germany I was standing next to an important weapon with the Director General of Weapons by my side. I talked to the operator of the system. He said, "I like the equipment but this lever fails every time it is repaired. Every two or three months I have to send it back to the Royal Ordnance depot for repair". The Director General of Weapons said, "Well, here lies the difficulty. When this is reported back to the Army Board, it is reported back in such a way that it becomes meaningless". He said that the comments one hears at high level are that the equipment works very well indeed but is subject to "seasonal changes".
480
What we must avoid is reporting back in the wrong way, which means that industry does not get the message about how the equipment performs.
Reliability and maintainability point also to the risks involved in taking competition policy too far. If price is the last word, the customer will suffer ultimately. What matters now are the through-life costings of equipment, which are difficult to quantify. I hope that the controllerate influence will prevail in cases where the Procurement Executive does not see eye to eye on the bottom line.
My experience is that reliability and maintainability are built into a company's design pedigree and cannot easily be quantified. If the procurement procedures are to be formalised so that reliability and maintainability to become a quality assurance requirement, the customer will end up paying more for what he wants. He wants to rely on the fact that equipment will work whenever needed and in any circumstances. The Defence Select Committee in the other place is now studying the whole question of reliability and maintainability.
As the House is already aware, I have an interest to declare. I am heavily involved in the Trident programme and other major defence developments. We talk a great deal in the Chamber about Trident but it is more than just a missile. We make the mistake of looking at it in isolation from the real business of building up our long-term underwater warfare capability, and the Vanguard class of boat is contributing strongly towards achieving that aim.
Trident bashing, which we have heard in the past from the Benches opposite, brings no comfort to the Royal Navy, which, in line with other navies, is building up its underwater capability to meet the perceived threat. It is doing it well, but it is a long-term process.
The main issue that we now face is how we manage the defence of the realm and procure all the material needed to justify expenditure now running, as we have heard, at £20 billion a year. Because equipment plays such an important part, industry's position is just as important now as manpower and firepower. We must ensure value for money.
Competition policy has had the right effect. A great deal of slack has been picked up in the procurement chain and companies are leaner and fitter as a result. They are better able to compete, but in every competition there is only one winner. The rest are losers; and because bidding can be so costly, the losers may not be so ready to bid in future rounds. The net effect of that is that in future rounds winners will not just be better placed. There is likely to be less competition; that is to say, if bidding remains UK only. However it will not do so. It will be widened into the independent European programme group countries so that the United Kingdom customer is likely to continue to benefit from competition policy on a grander scale within the post-1992 single market framework.
Foreign firms have already been invited to attend industrial briefings for the new generations of Army equipment, but I am concerned about the present lack of even-handed treatment. If the Government decide to let foreign firms bid here for defence

481
equipment, it is necessary to ensure that British firms can bid on equal terms in other countries. I hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne can give the House assurances on that point.
The Anglo-French reciprocal procurement agreement is, I understand, working three to one in favour of the French. I fear that the French do not open up their defence market to the same extent as we do. I am not sure what accounts for that imbalance. I know that the operational requirements are not always the same, but there must be other reasons. One of the reasons may well be that France's gross national product depends heavily upon defence exports and they therefore wish to see French firms taking the benefits of defence business.
The other issue to which I shall turn is the management restructuring of the MOD to be in place by April 1991. My understanding of how it will work is limited, but if there is to be more accountability, that can only add to the strength of the system. It will give industry more opportunity to provide services under contract, especially if the new budget holders are required to save 2·5 per cent. per year and are to be allowed flexibility in managing their affairs.
Industry can offer many engineering services. I am glad to see that contractorisation is to be extended beyond matters such as catering, cleaning and the other basic chores. If budget holders are to be untied from the PSA by April 1990 and to be free to choose the best contractor for work services instead of having to rely upon the monopoly supplier, I am sure that they will be better served. Creating the defence work services to assist them is obviously necessary as each service has lost the expertise that it had; for example, quartering in the Navy, quartermastering in the Army and I forget the term that the Air Force uses.
The Government have again shown that the defence budget is well balanced and that fighting efficiency has been maintained at a high level. The equipment ordering programme is strong, although I hope that my noble friend will not delay ordering the next batch of Type 23 frigates, and for that matter, the third Vanguard class submarine, or the 50-frigate Navy image will have disappeared completely from sight, if it has not already done so.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before I bring together the strings of the debate I should speak to the two orders in my name on the Order Paper.
The first of those is the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Act (Continuation) Order 1989, which was laid before your Lordships on 12th June. The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act, also of 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Those Acts together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three Services.
The second order is the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before your Lordships on 19th June. The purpose of the order is to add Spain to the list of countries to which
482
the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order applies. That will allow us to meet our obligations to Spain under the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement. The original order was made under Section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952.
Your Lordships may also be aware that it is our intention that an order under Section 1(2) of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 designating Spain as a country to which the Act as a whole applies should come into force at the same time. That order does not require parliamentary approval.
These orders will enable us to recognise the valuable contribution made by the 1986 referendum on Spanish membership of NATO by treating Spain in the same way as we do all our other NATO allies. I commend them to the House.
We have had an interesting and stimulating debate. It has been copiously endowed with the wealth of experience in these matters that your Lordships confer on such occasions. I and my ministerial colleagues will give careful consideration to what has been said today.
Perhaps I may turn now to specific points that were made during the debate. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, who made a number of points. They were prefaced by the declaration that he thought that the Government were spending too little on defence generally. That sits a little oddly, if I may say so, with the policy—if that is what it is, although I recognise that it has to come before the Labour Party—
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, the point is that the Government are spending too little on the commitments that they have undertaken. That is why a proper review would bring those two things into balance.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recognise that that is the view of the noble Lord. He certainly said that he thought that we were spending too little to meet the commitments, at least those that we had accepted. I do not accept that for a moment, but I think I am entitled to say that the noble Lord's policy—yet to be approved by the Labour Party Conference, I recognise—calls for a freeze on defence spending, as I understand it. Perhaps that will change when a policy emerges from the conference later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, also referred to this. The former asked me about the numbers of destroyers and frigates, the size of the force that we have and our plans for maintaining it. The Government remain committed to maintaining a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates and intend to order sufficient new Type 23 frigates to ensure that the target is achieved. Tenders have been sought for up to four ships and are due to be returned to the Ministry very shortly—within the next few days. Decisions on the size and timing of the order will be taken as soon as possible after the tenders have been returned and evaluated. The future ordering pattern will be consistent with our commitment to a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates.

483
The noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, asked me in particular about the size of the merchant fleet. This was a concern that was on the mind of more than one noble Lord, including that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. NATO is concerned at the shortage of vessels suitable for transatlantic reinforcement. The matter is being discussed within the Alliance to try to find ways to ameliorate the position. The United Kingdom is playing its full part in these discussions. I believe that the position has become worse in the last year or so and it is right that NATO should now address the matter again because a problem is emerging which clearly needs to be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, also asked me about the civil resupply of NATO nations. This too is currently the subject of a NATO study into the requirement and the study will bring forward recommendations in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, seemed to think that the Government were spending too much on defence. Indeed, those were his precise words and I do not think he would consider that I was misrepresenting him.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I said that the proportion of 4·3 per cent. of GNP was excessive at this time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I noticed the noble Lord's words specifically and I think that he said that we were spending too much. However, I recognise that he wishes to qualify that in the way in which he described. The fact is that, however one defines it, the noble Lord apparently takes the view that too much money is being spent on defence purposes, anyway in relation to our national wealth. I do not think that that view is very widely shared in your Lordships' House, but I hear what the noble Lord has to say on it.
He asked me a number of detailed points and I shall try to deal with as many of them as possible. First, he asked me about the efficiency of the Procurement Executive, a matter which has recently been the subject of a considerable scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee and other bodies. The fact is that the proportion of the defence budget that we spend on equipment matters has slightly declined in the last year or so. I make no apology for that, it is largely the result of a much more commercial and competitive procurement policy which has generated a considerable increase in value for the money that we spend on these purposes.
I was asked, I think by the noble Lord, about defence inflation. It was thought that because inflation, as related to defence equipment, was believed to be slightly higher than inflation generally, this would indicate a further cut in spending on the equipment. In fact, as a result of our competitive policies and perhaps for other reasons, so-called defence inflation has declined quite measurably in recent years, certainly in the last year or so. Indeed, figures for last year suggest—and I put it no higher
484
than that—that defence inflation, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, is now a point or two below high street inflation—if I may call it that—which has further contributed to the increased value for money and the increased volume we can get from the sums of money we spend on equipment purposes. I hope that the noble Lord will to some extent be reassured by that.
It is of course necessary to continue our pressures on the procurement process, not least by imposing upon our contractors much tauter contractual arrangements in relation to the procurement of the equipments which we obtain from them. That is generating some of the benefits to which I have referred.
The noble Lord also asked me about the AWACS offset programme. I do not know whether he has seen the reports, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence was in Seattle at the beginning of this week, attending the roll-out of the first AWACS aircraft for the Royal Air Force. He made some remarks about the offset programme at that time. The fact of the matter is that the AWACS offset programme is going very well. I am speaking from memory so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not get the figures precisely right. We have now achieved $630 million-worth of approved offset credits in connection with that programme, which is getting on for half the value of the programme overall. We are only about two years into the programme so I think that, far from being the failure which some people have suggested it is, that programme is a considerable success in offset terms. Nearly half the Boeing offset commitment, which itself is 130 per cent. of the value of the programme, has been achieved in less than two years of what will be an eight-year programme, or thereabouts. I am very pleased and satisfied with those figures, as I hope that your Lordships will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also asked me about staff leaving the Procurement Executive for jobs in industry. The procedures relating to the acceptance of appointments by former Crown servants are based on two principles: first, freedom of movement; and secondly, of course, avoidance of any suspicion of impropriety.
The first principle is based on the positive benefit of interchange between the public and the private sectors, but also on the more fundamental principle of personal liberty. However, the Government are conscious of the need to avoid corruption or impropriety or the appearance of either in relation to Crown service. In the Government's view, the independent scrutiny of the operation of these procedures exercised by the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee—now chaired by my noble friend Lord Carlisle, as noble Lords will be aware, and formerly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—maintains the correct balance between the two principles and effectively safeguards the national interest.
The noble Lord referred also to the reliability of equipment. My noble friend Lord Ironside touched on that matter as well. As my noble friend pointed out, I can confirm that reliability is now a very important consideration indeed in the evaluation of

485
new equipments for the armed forces. The House of Commons Defence Committee report on the matter has not yet been published, although the noble Lord was right to mention some references to the matter by the Public Accounts Committee. We shall be responding to those in due course.
The House of Commons Defence Committee has asked for a further memorandum on the subject and has indicated that it will be addressing the matter in more detail later this year. We look very carefully nowadays at the reliability of equipments when considering the purchase of new items. It is a major feature now in the trials of equipments that we undertake prior to acquisition for service use.
My noble friend Lord Pym, speaking from the width and depth of his experience on these matters, made a speech with which, if I may say so, I very much agreed. It is necessary to have considerable care with the proposals coming from the Soviet Union. That was essentially the message which my noble friend expressed.
Turning now to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, I have already referred to some of the points that he raised. Perhaps I may add some words about our amphibious capability about which the noble and gallant Lord asked me specifically. Again I am speaking from memory, and I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will forgive me if I am not quite right.
We have announced that the amphibious capability will be maintained and that "Intrepid" and "Fearless" will either be replaced or modernised in the context of a maintained amphibious capability. We have invited industry to bring forward proposals along both those lines. We shall be evaluating them all during the course of the rest of this year and early next year, and we shall announce decisions very shortly after that. At the same time we have invited proposals for up to two aviation support ships to go with the "Intrepid" and "Fearless", or their replacements, and we shall be receiving proposals in connection with those very shortly.
I can confirm again that the Government are quite determined to maintain our amphibious capability. Speaking not from my own experience but certainly from my own beliefs in the matter, our amphibious capability is the one aspect of our naval power which we may actually have to use in the time that we have it. The fact of the matter is that out-of-area operations, in which amphibious capability is likely to play such an important part, are going to take place somewhere or other within the next few years. They always have done in the past, and I can see no reason to think that they will not in the future, although of course I cannot predict where that will be. That is why amphibious capability is very important, not only for that role but for its primary role in northern Norway as well. It is why we are so determined to ensure that we maintain the capability of our amphibious forces in the way that I have described.
Turning to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who made a number of points, he was particularly concerned about the intention to
486
modernise the Lance system in due course. I must tell the noble Lord that the Lance system will not be sustainable beyond 1995. Therefore, if the Alliance rejects the third zero, as we do, clearly we must replace it in time to prevent it becoming unsustainable, as it will in the middle of the next decade. So I reject the proposition that there is no argument in favour of providing a follow-on to Lance. But if the noble Lord espouses the third zero, which of course we do not, that is the fundamental difference between us, not the question of whether or not we should produce a follow-on to the Lance system.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what is wrong with an airborne system?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are talking of the shorter range system, not the airborne systems. The current Lance system is the existing short-range system, as the noble Lord is aware. It is that capability in which we reject the third zero. That is why we have to ensure that Lance itself is modernised or replaced towards the middle of the next decade.
I now turn to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He raised a number of important and interesting points, and I shall deal with as many as I can.
First, there is service pay, which clearly has important implications for recruiting and for retention. Since 1979 pay has been increased in line with the recommendations of the Independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body although, as the noble and gallant Lord will recall, it was necessary for wider economic reasons to defer or stage the increases on two occasions. We believe that the independence of the review body and our record in implementing its recommendations provides service personnel with the best possible assurance that their pay will continue to be determined fairly, and will remain competitive. As the noble and gallant Lord knows, the role of that review body is to ensure that the pay of service personnel remains comparable with that of their friends and colleagues in outside society, added to which they get something called the X factor to pay for the extra exigencies of service life. We are determined to maintain that system, we hope to the benefit of our servicemen and servicewomen.
To turn to conditions of service and allowances—a matter which was also on the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby—last year we introduced a new package of Armed Forces' allowances. Its aim was to make them more relevant to modern service life. It was not a cost-cutting exercise although as part of the total package allowances that are considered no longer appropriate are being phased out. I am aware that some service personnel feel that they have been disadvantaged by the changes. We are not complacent on the matter. We are keeping the new allowances under review and will propose adjustments if they prove necessary.
Concerning housing—another matter raised both by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Braman, and by

487
the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby—your Lordships may recall that the question of a house purchase savings scheme for members of the Armed Forces was raised by the noble and gallant Lord a few months ago. We discussed the subject fairly fully on that occasion. Since then, during the debate in the other place on the Finance Bill my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary, while expressing doubts as to whether fiscal remedies were appropriate, acknowledged the need for a dialogue with Ministry of Defence Ministers on this important subject. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is pursuing the matter with him.
I was much encouraged by the wise words of caution from my noble friend Lord Mersey. He made an interesting suggestion about studentships. Perhaps I may look into that a little more carefully and write to him about it.
Reverting to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, he asked me about rifles, I think he was referring to the so-called drill purpose rifles which are much used in cadet forces. I remember that matter being raised with me a few weeks ago. I cannot quite remember what was the outcome; but if the noble Lord will allow me, I shall look into the matter and write to him on it.
Turning to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, he asked me particularly about the position of the Armed Forces regarding the community charge. In general, service personnel will be liable for and pay the personal community charge in respect of their sole or main residence in the same way as the rest of the population. A limited number of service personnel in short-stay accommodation or whose registration would not be in the interests of national security will be subject to special arrangements. The Ministry of Defence will make payments to the local charging authorities on their behalf and recover the contributions from them at the local personal community charge rate.
The noble and gallant Lord also asked me certain points about the Ministry of Defence research and development activity. That is a matter in which I am particularly interested. There has recently been a number of discussions on the very points which the noble and gallant Lord raised. Again, if the noble and gallant Lord will allow me, I shall write to him on that subject.
The noble and gallant Lord asked me about our decision to replace the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb currently in the Royal Air Force inventory. This bomb, which provides the United Kingdom's sub-strategic capability, is likely to reach the end of its service life towards the end of the century. We are studying options for a replacement and in this process are taking full account of the SACEUR's requirement for a tactical air-to-surface missile. We expect to make a decision on a successor system around the end of this year or perhaps early next year. I hope the noble and gallant Lord will not mind my saying that, in our view at least, this forms an essential part of our flexible response posture. That is a posture which the noble and gallant Lord has himself been a part of in a very distinguished way in years past.
488
Turning finally to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who made a number of points but in particular raised the question of the disposal of nuclear-powered submarines when they come to the end of their life, the Royal Navy has only one decommissioned nuclear submarine at the present time. That is HMS "Dreadnought", or "Dreadnought" as she now is because she is no longer a commissioned ship. Further vessels are to be decommissioned between now and the end of the century. "Dreadnought" is securely berthed at Rosyth at present, where it presents no hazard to the workforce or to the public. No further nuclear submarines will come out of service immediately, but there will be some more by the end of the century.
These vessels cannot be scrapped in the usual way because after the spent uranium has been removed the reactor plant and its associated machinery retains radioactivity which has been induced in the steelwork by the operation of the reactor. We are considering options for the disposal of decommissioned reactors from "Dreadnought" and other submarines. These include sea disposal of the intact submarine, land burial of the intact reactor compartment and cutting the reactor plant into small pieces for storage and eventual disposal in the deep level repository to be developed by NIREX. When a decision has been taken, Parliament will be informed in the normal way. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall take full account of the environmental considerations to which he referred.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is it not the case that the House of Commons Defence Committee has told the Government that it is time that they made up their mind between the various options? Rather than telling Parliament, is it not a subject for Parliament, if not to decide, at least to advise the Ministry of Defence on rather than to be told that a decision has been taken?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that the House of Commons Defence Committee will be slow in coming forward with its views on this matter, as it already has, as the noble Lord said. It is a highly technical matter. It is one to which I have given a great deal of consideration during the past year or so. We are taking all the advice that we can. We shall reach a decision as soon as we reasonably can and announce it in the normal way.
I must emphasise that this is not a matter of immediate urgency. HMS "Dreadnought", as she was, has been stored successfully for a number of years. There is no difficulty there. However, that cannot go on indefinitely and as further submarines will be decommissioned before too long we shall have to take a decision in time to ensure that it does not become an unmanageable problem. That we shall certainly do.
I turn now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Ironside, who was particularly concerned that British defence contractors should operate on what I think he would describe as a level playing field—very much a buzz expression in the industry at the moment. The Government are very anxious to

489
ensure that that happens. The reciprocal purchasing arrangement with our French friends, to which my noble friend also referred, is an example of that. We go to great lengths with our French friends to ensure that our respective companies are able to bid on the level playing field. That is achieved through regular meetings and the publication of contract bulletins by both Governments. All such matters are being addressed and I hope that that contributes to the desirable objective to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment. Can he say what the ordering plan for the third Vanguard class submarine is to be?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is under discussion within the ministry at present. We have not yet agreed terms with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, which is building the submarine. We expect to do so within the next few weeks or months. When that happens we shall make our announcement in the usual way. I hope and expect that, all being well, we shall reach agreement on that matter well before the end of the year.
Times of change demand even greater attention to our defences, for change, however welcome, means some uncertainty, even instability. No one can predict what the communist world will be like in five or 10 years' time. Although we are hopeful, we must remain prepared for as wide a range of outcomes as possible. To be prepared for the worst indicates neither pessimism nor an unwillingness to do what we can to prevent the worst coming about. But it is the responsibility of government not to be carried away on transient tides of euphoria. Decades of ingrained habit in the Soviet Union cannot be broken quickly. The Soviet Union's habit of probing for points of dissension in the West will not swiftly change, nor will the temptation to exploit every propaganda opportunity.
I have been criticised during the course of the debate for being too hawkish and not sufficiently recognising the changes now emerging in the Soviet Union. Maintaining the security of this country is the Government's prime responsibility. Strong defences have been necessary for that and will continue to be. As this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates shows, the Government are committed to making adequate provision for the Armed Forces within an overall security policy of realism tempered with hope for the future. We shall continue to carry out that policy, which has now borne so much fruit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
7.45 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1989
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1989
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Recovery Vehicles (Number of Vehicles Recovered) Order 1989
7.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Bra bazon of Tara)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Bra bazon of Tara) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to the Northern Ireland order at the same time. These two orders, which are identical in their effect, limit to two the number of disabled vehicles which "recovery vehicles" may recover at any time without ceasing to be recovery vehicles for vehicle taxation purposes.
Recovery vehicles are the specialist breakdown vehicles used to pick up, tow or transport broken-down, disabled or even illegally parked vehicles. They are typified by the roadside recovery service vehicles operated by the AA and the RAC. They benefit from a concessionary rate of vehicle excise duty of £50. The intention behind these orders is that recovery vehicles used to carry more than two vehicles at a time should not enjoy the same benefit but should pay vehicle excise duty at the appropriate HGV rate, which may be up to £3,100 for a 38-tonne gross weight articulated car transporter.
The trade expressed concern at the consultation stage at the lack of a limit on the number of vehicles which could be recovered by a recovery vehicle in the concessionary class. Its concerns stemmed from fears of possible abuse of the class by traders operating car transporters to collect used or disabled vehicles from various locations for repair, re-sale or scrapping. That would clearly not be a recovery service; rather the movement of vehicles as part of a business. Moreover, there was concern that the lack of a limit would encourage overloading.
The department, in view of concerns expressed earlier by the trade, sought the views of the police. They supported the trade's suggestion that the

491
number of vehicles which could be recovered at once be limited to two. The police were concerned to reduce the scope for abuse of the concessionary class. They were content that such a limit would not inhibit prompt clearance of the highway in the event of, for example, a multi-vehicle accident. In those circumstances they would merely request the appropriate number of recovery vehicles. Only a small proportion of recoveries are of this sort.
In practice most recovery vehicles are used to recover no more than one or two vehicles. Most would not be capable of recovering more than two vehicles at a time. A breakdown truck can only suspend-tow one vehicle at a time and the transporter-type vehicle, such as those used by the AA, can carry two small vehicles or carry one and suspend-tow another.
These regulations set the limit at two vehicles in order to ensure that the only vehicles to qualify for the VED concession are those used properly within the scope of the tax class. This is all the more important when seen against exemptions from operator licensing, tachographs and goods vehicles plating and testing for suspend-tow breakdown trucks only. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for explaining the two orders. I can assure him that we give them our full support.
I do not wish to be over-critical but perhaps I may make one comment which I have made before. If there is an explanatory note, please may it explain something. I tried to check paragraph 8(1) of Part I of Schedule 3 to the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 and I could not find it. Fortunately, I noticed some tiny print at the bottom of the order. It stated that the paragraph had been added by the Finance Act 1987, which I was then able to check and learn something about. I hope that in future the Minister will ensure that there is an explanation in the explanatory note. As he has given us an explanation, we can give full support to the orders, but prior to that I should have known very little about the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which the noble Lord gives to the orders. I shall endeavour to see whether on another occasion we can be more explanatory in the explanatory note.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Recovery Vehicles (Number of Vehicles Recovered) Order (Northern Ireland) 1989
7.50 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Rear Seats) Regulations 1989
7.51 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the passage of this legislation, we gave an undertaking to consult widely on the draft regulations. We produced a consultation document setting out the issues involved. We sent out almost 5,000 copies. We received responses from 65 organisations and from many individuals. We are most grateful to all those who took the trouble to respond and for their helpful comments. The draft regulations before noble Lords are framed around those comments.
The consultation exercise exposed the issues of what should happen when, for instance, there are draft regulations. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I explain what is not meant by these regulations. They are not about compulsory fitting. They do not make it obligatory for drivers to buy or fit rear adult belts or child restraints. The primary legislation states "where fitted". They are not about limiting the capacity of the car. They do not prevent the large family or a group of children—on the school run for example—from travelling together. They are not about compulsory wearing for adults. What the regulations are about is protecting the 80 per cent. or so of children who currently travel unrestrained in the rear.
The consultation exercise exposed the issues of what should happen when; for instance, there are more children than restraints; there is a mix of adults and children; luggage is being carried; seats can be folded down; and third party drivers are involved. They also opened up for debate who should wear what. I should like to deal with that last point first.
The consultation document explained that expert opinion was divided about the youngest age at which it was reasonable to require a child to wear an adult belt in the absence of a proper child restraint. Clearly, they would not be appropriate for children under one. They should be restrained in an approved baby restraint or a restrained carrycot. Where such suitable restraints are available, the regulations require them to be used. But what about slightly older children—those aged up to four? We proposed discussions with professional experts. A seminar was held on 19th April and was attended by the following: the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety; the Child Accident Prevention Trust; the National Automobile Safety Belt Association; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; the Transport and Road Research Laboratory; the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention; Dr Gordon Avery of the South Warwickshire Health Authority, and other officials from my department. We are extremely grateful to all those who took part. We are also grateful to the Consumers' Association which also dealt at length with this issue in its response to the consultation exercise.
The unanimous opinion of the seminar participants was that, on balance, it was probably safer for children aged under four—those aged one, two and three—to wear an adult belt rather than no belt at all, but that the law should not go as far as to require that they do so.
The issue is one of public acceptability. We recognise that many parents would feel uneasy about being required by law to restrain a small child in an adult belt that clearly did not fit well and was not designed to do so. Those at the seminar agreed, again unanimously, that the risk of belt-induced injury to children in this age group using an adult belt was minimal when using a booster cushion. We therefore propose that the range of restraints appropriate for children aged one to four should include an adult belt used in conjunction with a booster cushion.
We acknowledge that that is something of a compromise, but it is an option which can make a valuable contribution towards achieving the objective of the Act, which is to provide for the safety of children in cars. It is, of course, far better for a very young child to be restrained in a purpose-designed child restraint. We would expect all responsible parents to provide these for their children. We would hope that other drivers—grandparents, for example—who might expect to carry young children on occasions will, as a result of these regulations, be prepared to buy one, or perhaps two, booster cushions, which are comparatively inexpensive, in the knowledge that they are approved restraints for this age group.
There would be nothing in law to prevent a child in the one to four age group from being restrained in an adult belt if the driver wanted to offer some protection to the child, provided no other suitable restraint was available. Where a suitable restraint is available in the vehicle, it will have to be used. We shall continue, with the full backing of the seminar experts, to give the advice that, for this age group, an adult belt is better than no restraint at all.
Perhaps I may turn to the problem of more children than restraints. I have already explained that these regulations were not about limiting the capacity of the car. The regulations require suitable, available restraints to be worn. Where, for example, there are three suitable restraints available, but more than three children travelling in the rear of a car, three of them must be belted up. Then, as now, it will be the driver or parent's dilemma to decide who should travel unrestrained.
In the case of a mix of adults and children, there are clear safety benefits from allowing an adult to be restrained rather than a child. The heaviest unrestrained passengers can cause the most severe injury to others in the car in the event of a crash. The draft regulations allow for that: if an adult is using a belt, it will not be regarded as being available for a child and the child will not be required to use it. An adult not prepared to belt up will not be allowed to deny a child the use of that restraint if it is suitable for the child or could be used to hold an appropriate child restraint, if one is available. The adult would have to vacate the seat, unless that adult has a medical exemption certificate.
On the question of when luggage is being carried, we are, I am sure, all agreed, that children must come before luggage. We propose no exemption for children travelling unrestrained simply because luggage is being carried on a rear seat.
Some vehicles are designed so that part or all of the rear seat may be folded down. Under the regulations, a rear seat folded down to create more luggage space would not be regarded as being availabe for use, nor would any seat belt fitted to it, provided the additional luggage space is necessary for luggage to be carried and it is being so carried. We believe this pragmatic approach to be right.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of third party drivers. Taxi drivers and private hire car drivers argued strongly for exemption from the law on the grounds that they should not be expected to compel other people's children to wear seat belts or be responsible for ensuring that they continue to do so while travelling. The consultation exercise revealed that the vast majority of people were strongly against any such exemption. We see no case for exempting taxis generally or private car hire drivers. Indeed, the case that they put could be used by any third party driver—relatives or friends—to escape the responsibility that the new law places on them.
In some taxis, for instance, the "black cabs", and some hire cars, there is a fixed glass partition between the driver and the rear seat. Such a partition limits the scope for the driver to supervise the child passenger. We therefore propose that drivers of such vehicles which are properly licensed as taxis would be exempt from the new law. Organisations representing drivers of these vehicles—the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and the London Taxi Board—have both said that they fully support the fitting and wearing of child restraints. We propose to work with those organisations to see how we can encourage voluntary retro-fitting of seat belts in those taxis with suitable anchorage points, which are those manufactured since 1981. All taxis manufactured since October 1986 are required to have belts fitted. We shall also want to explore what we can do to encourage voluntary wearing by adults as well as children.
It is clear that the vast majority of the public welcome this measure. It is very much in tune with the climate of opinion and within the spirit of the enabling legislation that the House passed a year ago. I therefore commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
8 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations. As he reminded us, during the Committee stage of the legislation considerable reliance was placed on the regulations that were to be introduced in order to deal with the various points that were raised. The general view was that the Bill was so useful that

495
noble Lords did not want it held up by tabling amendments but would rather rely on the regulations.
By and large the Minister and the department have fulfilled the undertakings that were given, and the regulations generally are welcome. Regulation 6, to which the Minister referred in some detail—"Interpretation of reference to availability" —appears to have clarified quite satisfactorily many of the points raised under that heading. I wish to raise only three points. I assume that Regulation 6 taken in conjunction with Regulation 4 on exempt vehicles means that the regulations will apply where a seat belt is available (that is, where a seat belt is fitted) irrespective of the age of the vehicle or the year of its manufacture. If I am wrong on that point I am sure that the Minister will correct me when he replies.
I understand the explanation given by the Minister regarding licensed taxis and hire cars but I am still very concerned about the compromise which has been arranged. The object of the Act and the regulations is the safety of the child. That is the important matter. I hope that discussions will take place with the organisations concerned to see how far that can be developed. Presumably where there is no partition fitted the vehicles will not be exempt. Therefore it is solely a matter of whether or not the taxi driver or licensed car driver can satisfactorily supervise the operation of seat belts for children. I am still rather concerned about the position and hope that it can be clarified.
The Minister mentioned the wide representation at the seminar and the general agreement reached. He also referred to the presence of the Consumers' Association. No doubt he is aware of the communication which was delivered to me today by express courier giving the views of the Consumers' Association. I should like to have the Minister's views on it. The association is particularly concerned about paragraph (3) of Regulation 3, which refers to the position of young children between the ages of one and four years. The regulation provides that the wearing of an adult seat belt should be in conjunction with a booster cushion. The Consumers' Association expresses the view that a booster seat and not a booster cushion should be used, or alternatively a child safety seat.
There is an important point which arises from that. If it has not been done already research should be thoroughly carried out as soon as possible into the age at which an adult seat belt can safely be worn by a child of one to four years, whether or not with a booster cushion. It appears that the desire for research is also expressed by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety. Therefore two very important bodies urge that this research should be carried out fairly soon.
The Consumers' Association also stressed that there appears to be a need for adequate publicity to be given for the use of special restraints for the under-fours and for the use of booster cushions with seat belts for the over-fours. Although we welcome the regulations, as we did the Bill which is now an Act, I should like the Minister to give some assurance
496
that the effect of the regulations will be carefully monitored and the results of the monitoring exercise publicised.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to join in welcoming the regulations. This is a classic case in which consultation has been well carried out and the department, having taken notice of the consultations, has produced regulations which answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, most of the criticisms of the Bill that were raised during its passage through the House before it became an Act. Like him, I am not satisfied with the situation so far as it concerns taxis, although I understand the difficulty of taxi drivers. It seems to me that the first step may be to increase the use of rear seat belts for adults in taxis. I think that the department would do well to persuade taxi drivers to put up signs in their taxis encouraging adults to use the seat belts which are now fitted in most of the taxis in London. That would be a step towards providing proper equipment for children.
As regards the booster cushions, I wonder whether there may not be other devices which could be used in conjunction with adult seat belts, particularly when adults are wearing them. Recently I travelled on an aeroplane and noticed a child in the next seat who was enclosed in an additional belt which fitted on to the seat belt that was in the aircraft. Perhaps there is some way of incorporating that kind of device. It is probably not as effective as a booster cushion but may be an aid that can be used in certain circumstances.
With those minor qualifications, I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which they have handled this whole affair. I know that there are others who feel that the liberty of the entire nation is at risk but from all sides we hear from parents and grandparents of young children a desire to have these regulations in operation as soon as possible so that little Johnny can be told that he had jolly well better belt up, otherwise the law will be after him. That may not be too admirable a way of doing it, but it is useful to give parents a responsibility to ensure that their children are properly belted up and a little incentive to help them do so. I commend the regulations.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations. The wording is extremely complex, even tortuous. I suppose that is inevitable. Perhaps I am particularly slow-witted this evening but I found the regulations difficult to interpret and I hope that the general public will not also find them so.
By and large I regret the regulations because many—not all, but many—of the worst fears of those who opposed the original Bill have been realised. First, it will throw a clumsy spanner into the works of that long hallowed, useful and indeed vital institution the "school run" by restricting the number of children who can be carried in a car at any one time. As I interpret the Minister's remarks, only one unbelted child will be allowed in the back of the car, which means either three of four children in the back depending on how many seat belts are

497
fitted in the car. In my day we used to take five, six, seven or even on rare occasions eight children in the car on our one-and-a-half mile school run. I wonder whether the statistics show that that practice has resulted in any harm. Certainly I can recall no instance of any child that I know—my neighbours' children or any child in the neighbourhood—being injured in any way. Perhaps the very absence of belts made us all drive more carefully than people seem to do nowadays.
One can welcome Regulation 6(2)(e), which grants an exemption for children who are too heavy for the child restraints that happen to be fitted to the car in question. However, I regret above all the absence of any exemption for children who are stretched out on the back seat of their car or in the rear part of an estate car. This was an exemption which was sought by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, from the S&LD Benches who had found this practice extremely useful in bringing up his large family. Which driver is more likely to have an accident—a parent whose children are stretched out asleep or dozing in the back or a parent who is being driven to distraction by overtired but wide awake children squabbling fiercely on the back seat? I think that the answer is obvious.
I believe that permitting children of four and upwards to use an adult's seat belt without a booster cushion is simply asking for trouble. A child small in stature could have his neck or throat badly injured not only in the event of a collision but on a sudden braking—if a dog were to run out in front of a car, for example. I hope that the effects, of this concession, if one likes to call it that, will be closely monitored by the noble Lord's department.
Finally, it will be remembered that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, posed this question on many occasions. What is the situation of a parent whose disobedient child of four years or upwards, who would be quite strong enough to unbuckle the seat belt, deliberately unbuckles it without the parent's knowledge, or possibly with the parent's knowledge but while his or her hands were full with driving the car? The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to a parent being able to threaten little Johnny with the heavy hand of the law. But little Johnny, if he is of a certain age, will know perfectly well that it is not he who will have the heavy hand of the law clamped on him but his parents. Out of mischief he may well unbuckle his belt for that very reason. I look forward with interest to hearing the reply of the noble Lord.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to say a word of congratulation to my noble friend on proposing the new statutory order. I extend that congratulation to the honourable Member in another place, Mr. Peter Bottomley, on being the main force in arranging the very wide consultations that have taken place. They have helped to give confidence all round, to iron out the many practical difficulties that we discussed at some length during Committee stage and to meet the very practical points that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised in his splendid traditional defence of the liberty of the subject.
We now have a clear set of regulations, with a pretty lengthy list of exemptions. However, that
498
seems to me completely right. What remains are regulations that are clear and enforceable. Where there is doubt, the regulation does not cover that aspect.
I believe that the new legal requirement for seat belt wearing by children in the rear of cars will quickly win general observance by all parents wishing to give maximum protection to their children. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it will be an additional weapon in the hands of parents to say that the law is there and that the child had better do as he is told.
The TRRL survey shows that 75, per cent. of children over five years travel unrestrained in the rear of cars. That is a disturbingly high number. Today 45 per cent. of cars are fitted with rear seat belts. Every year the quota of new cars coming in is fitted with rear seat belts. The prospect of having a large number of children protected who have not been protected before is good.
I believe that the observance of these seat belt regulations will be very high, in the same way as it was for the wearing of front seat belts. I believe that the figure still remains at over 90 per cent. We can expect that problems of enforcement will be almost nil and that there will be a significant reduction in injuries to children in the four to 14 years age bracket who now account for some 70 per cent. of all the serious and fatal car casualties. That is a pretty serious toll which we can expect to be reduced.
I found the PACTS study helpful. As always PACTS makes a most valuable contribution to this work. On the record of injury to children wearing seat belts—a point on which anxiety has been voiced—it does not support the fears expressed in some quarters. However, it makes the point that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made and with which I entirely agree, that clearly more research is needed in this area. I agree with the noble Lord that four year-olds are obviously rather near the borderline of danger from an adult seat belt. It would be very desirable to have careful monitoring and indeed research work in that field. In the meantime, most of the children in the age bracket of four to 14 years will be protected and they will be safe enough.
I conclude by congratulating my noble friend on moving the order. I am sure that it will give substantial benefit and will be another step forward in the general wearing of seat belts, a factor which has already afforded so much benefit towards the saving of life and limb.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful for the general welcome that noble Lords, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have given to the order. It completes a process that we started last year when we passed the Bill, which was so ably piloted through the House by my noble friend Lord Nugent.
Perhaps I may answer briefly the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether the regulations would apply irrespective of the year of manufacture of the vehicle. The answer is, yes, they will apply to any car to which a rear seat belt has been fitted regardless of its age and manufacture.

499
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, referred to taxis. I can confirm that all taxis and hired cars, apart from those with a partition, will be covered by the regulations and therefore will be in no different position from any other third party driver. I mentioned certain discussions that we have had with the taxi trade. Those will continue. We welcome the general support that we have had from it.
On booster cushions, I acknowledged in my speech that such use by children aged one, two and three years is something of a compromise. The view of the experts is that it is certainly better to have specially designed restraints. But it is better to have some restraint rather than none. I can confirm to noble Lords—and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised this in particular—that full publicity is planned in the run up to the implementation of these regulations on 1st September and on the day. We already publicise the child restraints. We shall continue to do so, especially in view of the new regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has slightly misinterpreted the regulations regarding the school run. They will not specifically limit the capacity of a car. They require only that such belts as are fitted should be used; not that all passengers should be restrained. If he were to take six children in the back of his car and there are three belts, then three belts must be used and the other three children would have to remain unrestrained.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also talked about a child deliberately unbuckling a belt. The responsibility would, I am afraid, lie on the driver or the parent, whoever was driving at the time, and the heavy hand of the law might indeed come down on such a driver. If the child does that deliberately and if the parent is caught by the police, he will have no option but to deduct any fine from the child's pocket money over a period of time. That may be sufficient punishment for the child.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the research which should necessarily be continued into the age at which adult belts can be safely worn. That research falls into two categories. First, there is the testing with dummies where much has already been done. But there are limitations on how well this work simulates real live accidents. Standard test procedures are used for approval testing of booster cushions used in conjunction with adult belts.
Secondly, there is the monitoring of real life situations. The information available shows that children above the age of one are safer when restrained by an adult belt than when they are unrestricted. In one study of over 500 children involved in accidents—including 300 under four year-olds restrained by adult belts—only one was injured by the belt. We shall also be monitoring international experience and we shall continue to do research and to monitor this procedure.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I am sure that he is right when he says that the measure will achieve the success that the
500
wearing of front seat-belts has achieved. It is now over 90 per cent. accepted by the general public since it was made compulsory. Therefore I commend these regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
8.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill. It is of narrow scope, and it is confined to just two matters. The first is to extend the existing franchise for British citizens overseas. The second is to set a new limit on candidates' by-election expenses.
The first of these—extending the franchise —affects the right to vote at elections to another place and at elections to what I might describe as the "other Parliament"—the European Parliament. The second—the provision on election expenses—relates only to by-elections for seats in the House of Commons.
Perhaps I may take first the extension of the overseas electors' franchise. The principle that British citizens who are resident abroad may vote was established by the Representation of the People Act 1985. Before then the right to vote from abroad was the prerogative only of members of the Armed Forces and Crown servants. The new franchise had long been desired by British citizens around the globe.
Britons abroad had only a qualified franchise in the 1985 Act, and in the regulations made for them under that Act. The 1985 Act placed a rather niggardly time limit of five years on the period abroad during which an overseas elector could qualify. It also required him to make a special statutory declaration about his residence intentions. The regulations insisted that the applicant must have his initial declaration formally attested by a consular officer abroad.
There was considerable discussion in 1985 both in your Lordships' House and in another place about the merits of restricting the franchise in the way in which I have described. Some argued that the right to vote is a fundamental civic right which all citizens of a country should possess, without let or hindrance, regardless of where they happen to be living. Others argued, doubtless with equal sincerity, that the constituency link weakens the longer that a person is abroad, and that the vote should not be given to people who have made their permanent home abroad.
In the spirit of compromise which I think should guide us in discussions of this nature, we then established the principle of an overseas elector's franchise but we made it subject to the qualifications which I have described. The Government made it clear at the time when these new rights were being discussed that they believed that many of the fears and reservations which had been expressed about them would not in fact materialise once the new

501
franchise was in operation. The Government made a commitment to review the new arrangements once they were in operation, and, in particular, to reconsider the five-year time limit. Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill are the results of that review.
The Government's aim has been for the Bill to have the widest possible degree of support by all parties. My right honourable friend engaged in consultation with them before the Bill was introduced. As the Bill went through another place there was further consultation and amendments were made. The objective all along has been to secure the most generous extension of the franchise which is nevertheless compatible with a fair measure of all-party agreement.
Clause 1 of the Bill extends the period during which a British citizen who is resident abroad may register to vote from the existing five years to 20 years. Twenty years is a not as long a period as the Government wished, but a fourfold increase is nevertheless a substantial advance on the existing limit. It will enfranchise an estimated 1–6 million British citizens living and working abroad, many of whom are doing so in the United Kingdom's interests. The Government's acceptance of a 20-year cut-off period should not be taken to devalue in any way the work which is still being done for Britain by many of her citizens who have been abroad for longer than 20 years.
No arbitrary period of this kind can be sacrosanct, and it will be open to some future Parliament to reconsider the period and perhaps to abolish it altogether. But 20 years should enfranchise most of our citizens who, encouraged by successive governments, have gone abroad to work for international and world development organisations; to advance British economic interests as entrepreneurs; or to pursue careers in the European Community institutions. Many intend to retire to the United Kingdom. Many have family, friends and other strong links still here.
Clauses 2 and 3 enable a person who attains the age of 18 while abroad to vote at home even though he was not on the electoral register before he went abroad, because he was not then old enough.
Clause 4 abolishes the requirement for an overseas elector to make a statutory declaration in which he denies any intention to reside permanently outside the UK. It was always unpopular and experience has shown that it added nothing but nuisance value to the procedures. The declaration cannot be verified by the person who has to decide the application. Indeed it is difficult to see how a declaration could be proved to be false at the time when it was made, as an intention is something in the mind and is not a provable fact.
Clause 5 enables my right honourable friends to require electoral registration officers to send each registered overseas elector a notice reminding him of the need to register annually.
It is obviously not possible for electoral registration officers to canvass Britons abroad, as they do with people at home. But this simple measure will go some way to putting our citizens abroad on a more equitable footing. Registration as an overseas
502
elector is, and will remain, voluntary but it should be eased by this clause and the preceding four which I have outlined.
The second topic in this short Bill relates to expenses at by-elections for seats in another place and is covered in Clause 6. In announcing the proposed new limit, my right honourable friend made clear his view that a more thoroughgoing review of election expenses is needed. He gave an assurance that the new limit, which is four times that which now applies, is entirely without prejudice to the outcome of the longer term review. It is no more than an interim measure settled following consultation with the main parties involved. It is a realistic response to the reality of the very intensive campaigning which surrounds by-elections nowadays.
This is a short Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will agree that it represents a significant further extension of democracy. I believe that it will be greatly welcomed by many thousands of our citizens abroad. The Government have sought to ensure that the Bill commands wide acceptance. I hope that your Lordships will also wish to give it a swift passage to the statute book in order that its provisions can be implemented to the benefit of our citizens abroad. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for explaining this short but very important Bill. Although he said that there have been consultation and agreement between the parties, I am afraid that I must be critical of certain aspects following some of the points raised by the Opposition Front Bench. As the Division voting record will show, there was not wholehearted support from Opposition Members of Parliament in respect of various of its aspects.
Some may argue why Members of this House should deal with a matter whose main concern is with the House of Commons. There are two reasons. First, the Bill affects not only parliamentary elections but also European parliamentary elections in which we have an entitlement to vote. Secondly, as Members of this House we are denied the right to vote at parliamentary elections but as citizens we are obviously interested in the government who are elected. Therefore we make comments upon the provisions for the election of that government.
The noble Earl emphasised that the 1985 Act which introduced the innovation for overseas electors provided for a period of five years' previous residence in this country or some time within that period. When the Bill was originally presented to the other place a period of 25 years was proposed. An amendment was accepted which reduced the period to 20 years. Perhaps unkindly some people said that there had been collusion in order to achieve that compromise. Now we have a position where someone can be abroad for 20 years an d can register

503
and therefore be entitled to vote in the constituency in which he lived at some time during the previous 20 years.
We have always prided ourselves on the fact that the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituents is an essential factor of our democratic system. If someone is away for up to 20 years it makes nonsense of the close liaison between an MP and his constituents. Some people may have identified themselves closely with the country in which they reside and have very little knowledge of the political situation in the United Kingdom.
Those factors may have affected the figures given in another place. Of the 500,000 eligible overseas electors only a small number took advantage of the 1985 Act and registered. It is now being stated that as a result of the change made in the Bill, the number of possible overseas electors could be as many as 2 million. My rough accountancy—and accountancy is not my main achievement—suggests that on average there could be 3,000 electors per constituency. There could be a vital effect if a large number of people took advantage of the provision, registered and recorded their votes.
The noble Earl emphasised the position of those who are not on the register in the United Kingdom because of their age—those people under the age of 18. It could be that they go abroad after having been in this country for only a few months. However, if their guardians or parents had had an address in a constituency in this country during the past 20 years they could be entitled to register as overseas electors and vote at the age of 18. Frankly, it is difficult to justify that procedure, whatever might be the justification put forward for the adults who move overseas.
Further, I cannot go along with the proposal in the Bill that the declaration of intention to return is unnecessary. The Minister said that the period provided in the 1985 Act was a niggardly five years. There was a great deal of discussion and persuasion in order to achieve that period. It seems unwise to remove the necessity for people to declare an intention to return to the United Kingdom. It seems that that should be done.
Clause 6 provides for the revision of candidates' election expenses, and I have no opposition to that. I have worked out the figures and they may appear to be high. However, it must be emphasised that they apply only to parliamentary by-elections and to no others, as the noble Earl made clear. They do not apply to general elections.
It is 10 years since at a national level I was in charge of the arrangements for parliamentary by-elections for my party. Even then I realised the difficulties in which many election agents were placed in order to ensure that they kept within the law as regards election expenses at by-elections. Even in those days by-elections were not merely elections but national contests. They have achieved greater importance as the years have passed. The proposals for the increase in by-election expenses can be justified, and I have no objection.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. It has our wholehearted support. I shall not detain the House for more than a second as regards one or two omissions from the Bill. There may be those on the Government Benches who will expect me to introduce an amendment to include proportional representation in the Bill. On this occasion I have no intention of doing so and shall not detain the Committee at that stage, strong as our belief is in the principle. Nor shall I cover the ground which we covered in 1985 in relation to nominations rather than deposits. However, I still believe that having a significant number of nominees rather than a high deposit level is a better way of keeping mavericks off the ballot paper.
A subject that we must tackle ere long is that of limits on national expenditure. I repeat that it is all right to restrict the individual candidate in the individual constituency. However Where parties can so change the mood of the nation through the modern methods of the media by vast expenditure, we must worry to a degree about the ability of smaller groups of people to put their case across in the great razzamatazz which is becoming the electoral scene.
I direct my attention first to Clause 6. Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we are all aware of the degree of "constructive" accountancy—for want of a better word—that has been indulged in by election agents in by-elections for a long time. Having regard to the pressure at by-elections and the limelight which now shines upon them, the increasing cost of paper and the vast amounts now turned out by all parties thanks to modern methods of printing, it is good that the amount has been extended as it has. I have no doubt that a more careful watch will now be kept on the expenses of candidates when finally submitted at the end of the campaign.
I now come back to the question of the rights of overseas citizens to vote in elections for this country and in European Parliament elections. I welcome the provisions. However, I am disappointed that the level is still set at 20 years. As the noble Lord said, I am sure that we shall have to return to that eventually and I hope that at the end of the day we shall not have a time limit at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is treading an interesting tightrope in his remarks to us this evening. Some of the things said by his right honourable and honourable friends in another place and, indeed, by his noble friend Lord Mishcon in 1985 were somewhat more vitriolic, for want of a better word, in relation to British citizens living abroad. For example, there was reference in another place to the Tory Party scrabbling around the world looking for votes from tax dodgers, thieves and wastrels. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made some reference to those who had left our shores in order to escape taxation or indeed to escape from the rigours of the law.
We are not talking about those people but about genuine British citizens who are doing a good job for this country in overseas territories, some

505
spending their lives in those areas and most of them coming back at the end of the day to make their homes here.
As I said in 1985, it seems to me that they should have a right to have some say in electing the Government of this country. There are matters which bear on them; for example, this country's foreign policy. I guess that people who lived in the Falklands for a number of years and who have retained British citizenship will have a great interest in the foreign policy of this country and should have some means of expressing their views. Similarly, when it comes to taxation in relation to pensions which may be accruing in this country, there should be some mechanism through which they can express themselves.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is a problem from the constituency point of view and the loss of contact with a particular constituency. Perhaps one day we shall have to think in terms of setting up a special constituency for overseas people, people who are abroad for longer than a certain period of time.
It seems to me that the Americans have been able to vote in their elections for many years past, as have the French. All the trends in electoral law are moving towards greater flexibility. As noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend Mr. David Steel was on a parliamentary list in Italy this year as were one or two people from France. I believe that that is to be welcomed. We should begin to recognise that certainly as regards European elections, there is a wider canvas on which we should be painting.
I cannot dismiss a slight feeling that we have been here before. I cannot help saying, "I told you so". I remember that in 1985 I said:
"we should like to see British citizens throughout the world allowed to vote because it is on the basis of citizenship and not necesarily residence that the vote should be granted".—[Official Report, 2/5/85; col. 404.]
To that end I sought to move amendments. In particular, I moved an amendment on the same day to widen the franchise to British citizens living in Europe. I had the temerity to divide the House and both the Government and the Opposition voted against me and I lost by 99 votes to 20. However, I was glad to have done that because I felt it was a matter of high principle. Therefore, without being too complacent, it is a matter of some comfort to me that we are moving on.
I believe that we still have some way to go. As I say, I should like to see the 20-year limit removed because many people who go abroad, if they go for a long time, go for slightly more than 20 years. I believe that 25 years would be much better because that tends to be much closer to the overseas period of service of people working for, for example, multinational companies. However, I hope that we shall return to sort out that matter eventually.
I do not agree that we should have retained the requirement to declare an intention to return. I believe that that was meaningless and most difficult to check on. A person might have had the intention to return at the time but then have changed his mind later. There was no way in which that provision
506
could be enforced, and parts of the law which cannot be enforced are better out of the way. Therefore, with the qualification that it does not go far enough in one or two areas, we give this Bill our heartfelt support.
8.46 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should also like to welcome this Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for having outlined its provisions.
However, many of us have had considerable pressure from organisations of British citizens resident abroad—for example, the British Conservative Association of France, of which I am the president. There are many other organisations which are of all-party membership and of no particular party but consist of British citizens who are serving their country abroad. They very much regret and resent being disenfranchised the moment they step off these shores.
My noble friend and other noble Lords have rightly referred to the 1985 Act. That introduced a five-year time limit. After that, it was very much hoped that the Government would take a wider and rather more liberal view and accede to the idea, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, that that time limit would be removed.
I certainly welcome the clause in the Bill which removes the declaration of intent because that has clearly not worked. I believe that it was very sensible that that should be dropped.
Turning to the time limit, I should like to give one very brief example of how that will create more anomalies and discrimination, although if there is going to be discrimination, 20 years is better than five. For example, many British citizens joined the European Commission or other European institutions in 1973 when the United Kingdom joined the EC. They will have the right to vote in a general election up to 1992, within which time there will be another general election, and they will have one bite at the cherry, but they will not be eligible to vote in the 1994 European Parliament elections. It is very regrettable that those people should be allowed to vote once and then should have that right taken away because they have lived abroad for over 20 years. They have probably not stayed voluntarily but have been doing a job for this country, whether in a European institution or any other sort of job which links them with the United Kingdom. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government or future Parliament will consider that the removal of the time limit will be of infinite benefit to our citizens working abroad.
Having read very carefully the debates in another place, I sometimes gained the impresssion that when referring to "British citizens abroad", there is a feeling that they have sailed away to the far corners of the Empire and are totally unaware that the means of communication and transport have considerably changed in the past 50 years. They seem to be unaware that practically everybody who lives outside this country comes back at least once or twice a year to see family, to look after property, pay taxes or whatever it may be. Linkage with one's home country

507
is no longer a problem as it was years ago. I suggest that somehow people should widen their vision and recognise how life is lived today and not as it used to be.
Concerning the connection with a constituency, that is true if we think regrettably of the millions of British citizens living in constituencies who do not use their vote because they refuse to vote. Perhaps I may say that that is an infinitely greater crime to me as a responsible democrat: that whose who have the right do not use it rather than those who go abroad and would like to be able to vote and have not been able to do so.
Having read again the Representation of the People Bill debated on 29th June in another place, I refer to the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Office, Mr. Hogg, when he refers to the fact that the Government are taking a high moral stance that British Citizens, prima facie, should have the right to vote. I hope that slippage from the high moral ground will one day be restored and that British citizens, wherever they may be while they are outside the United Kingdom, will never be deprived of the right to vote in United Kingdom or European Parliament elections.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I said at the beginning that this was a short Bill. Indeed, it is a short Bill and it has also been a short debate but nonetheless important. Changes in electoral law are not matters which wise governments seek to make without careful consideration of other points of view, both within and outside Parliament.
It has been of assistance for the Government to hear your Lordships' views this evening. I am bound to say that I was excited at one moment when the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, assured the House that he was intending to speak for only a second. I thought that that was a modest length of time, but the fact that he extended it to eight minutes was merely a reflection of the interest that he has always shown in electoral matters and with which he stimulated us this evening.
I wondered whether the noble Lord would succeed in bringing proportional representation into the debate and, sure enough, he could not resist referring to it; but he was kind enough to say that he had no intention of tabling an amendment in Committee and I am grateful to him for that.
Not everyone can agree on these matters and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, understandably said
508
that he did not like the idea of the 20-year extension of the franchise because it made nonsense of close constituency links. That is a perfectly understandable view, but we also heard the other side of the argument. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lady Elles expressed the hope that the 20-year limit would be abolished in due course. That is for future governments and future parliaments to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that he had no opposition to Clause 6. I am most grateful to him. Indeed, I did not think any noble Lord opposed Clause 6. The point is that, although this will enfranchise 1–6 million people, the experience of other countries shows that the opportunity is taken up by very few people. In the United States, France, West Germany, Australia, Spain and Italy only about 10 per cent. of those who have the right to take up the franchise do so; but the fact that it is there is important.
I am grateful to your Lordships for having given what I should like to think is, if not a wholehearted welcome to the Bill, a fairly gracious welcome, with the one or two reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I hope that it will be possible to expedite the Bill so that in the near future those of our citizens who are working abroad—and let us remember, as my noble friend said, that they are not necessarily all that far away—continue to be able to have the franchise which this Bill will permit.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he said that I had no objection to Clause 6. I was referring to the raising of election expenses at parliamentary by-elections. It seems that he was confusing that with an earlier clause.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct. His observations refer to the cash limits.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Ltd. Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES
  POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES
  ORANGE BADGE SCHEME: THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS
  ORANGE BADGE SCHEME: THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS
  BATTERSEA POWER STATION CONVERSION: VISITORS' PARKING
  BATTERSEA POWER STATION CONVERSION: VISITORS' PARKING
  "CRACK" SEIZURES
  "CRACK" SEIZURES
  HOME OFFICE: FAX MACHINES
  HOME OFFICE: FAX MACHINES
  CHARITY LAND SALES: TRUSTEES' DUTIES
  CHARITY LAND SALES: TRUSTEES' DUTIES
  REPARATIONS: REPORT ON EXPERIMENTAL SCHEMES
  REPARATIONS: REPORT ON EXPERIMENTAL SCHEMES
  DEER: SLAUGHTER CODE OBSERVANCE
  DEER: SLAUGHTER CODE OBSERVANCE