Sitting of 19 April 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We have not started yet.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
  That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 26 April.

  RIVER TEES BARRAGE AND CROSSING BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  Mr. Speaker: As the next 13 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

  ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [27 February],
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 26 April.
  CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 April.

  EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 26 April.
  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

  Oral Answers to Questions
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By opting to go to Sandringham this afternoon rather than being in his place for Agriculture Question Time in the House of Commons, has not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food got his priorities wrong? I admire much of the work of Prince Charles, and I have been a staunch supporter in difficult times of the European Community, but does the House agree that it is deeply unhelpful that the heir to the throne and a European Commissioner should consider that their business, however interesting and praiseworthy, should take precedence over a Minister's duty to be in the House of Commons for his own Question Time?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was going to explain in answer to the first question the reasons for my right hon. Friend's absence. As the House will recall, this Question Time was originally fixed for 5 April and my right hon. Friend, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and two European Commissioners— for agriculture and for environmental affairs—had a long-standing engagement today. My right hon. Friend hopes that the House will understand the importance of his keeping that engagement to deal with extremely important matters.
  Mr. Speaker: I think we should get on.

  Oral Answers to Questions
    AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

      Beef Industry
      Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the beef industry.
      Mr. Curry: The beef breeding herd is at its highest level for a decade. Last year there was a rise of 9 per cent. over 1988.
      Mr. Carlile: Under European Community rules, the Government could pay up to £71·37 per cow in hill livestock compensatory allowance. At the moment they are paying merely £54·50. Why will not the Government support hill farmers to the hilt when their incomes are depressed largely as a result of Government policy?
      Mr. Curry: The Government support hill livestock producers very substantially. We recently increased the hill livestock compensatory allowance for sheep producers and we judged that that was the best place to put a limited resource. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that last year we increased the suckler cow premium by 42 per cent. and extended it to smaller farmers. That particularly

      1535
      affects beet producers, 60 per cent. of whom are in less-favoured areas. We direct £50 million a year in HLCAs to beef producers in the uplands. So we have nothing to apologise for in our support of the beef industry.
      Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the suckler cow subsidy does much to improve confidence in the beef industry? As rearing hill calves is a long-term project, will he give as early warning as possible about the future of the HLCAs for next year so that farmers can plan with confidence?
      Mr. Curry: I take heed of my hon. Friend's comments. The fact that we have to negotiate in Brussels means that sometimes we cannot give as much warning as we should like because negotiations are delayed. It is certainly true that we have at heart the welfare of those beef producers.
      Dr. David Clark: As the issue dominating the beef industry is mad cow disease, why do the Government refuse to implement the recommendation of their own Tyrrell working party and undertake a random sample of dead cows at slaughterhouses to ascertain the extent of mad cow disease in the British herd?
      Mr. Curry: The reason is that the measures that we have taken are more effective. We maintain extremely effective controls, and many of our actions have gone beyond the recommendations of our scientific advisers. We believe that the precautionary approach is right. We have done everything possible to safeguard public health and have gone beyond many of the recommendations made in that respect.

      Food Hygiene
      Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the hygiene standards of British food resulting from the Food Safety Bill and those of food from other European Community countries.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The Food Safety Bill is a joint initiative between my Department and the Department of Health.
      Once the Bill and various subsidiary regulations are in place, we will have a comprehensive and flexible framework in controls, equal to the very best in the world.
      Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend and the whole House will be aware that the Food Safety Bill creates a framework for a mass of secondary legislation in the form of regulations on food safety. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will consult widely and thoroughly on all the regulations before they and the Bill become law to ensure that British food continues to be as safe and wholesome as any in the world?
      Mr. Maclean: As my hon. Friend knows, the Bill allows us to consult on a wide variety of regulations and I can give the House the assurance that he seeks. We will consult widely on the regulations that will be required as the Bill becomes law. We shall conduct those negotiations and consultations during the summer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his kind comments about the Bill in an article in the Financial Times last week.
      Dr. David Clark: If food hygiene standards in Britain are as high as the Minister says, why has food poisoning increased fivefold since the Government took office?
      Mr. Maclean: It is strange for the hon. Gentleman suddenly to attribute food poisoning to the Government taking office. That is quite bogus and the correlation cannot be made. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is so.

      Sugar Beet
      Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the United Kingdom sugar beet industry.
      Mr. Curry: The United Kingdom sugar beet industry grows and processes about half the United Kingdom's sugar requirements. We will seek to ensure that British sugar interests are defended in the forthcoming review of the Community's support arrangements.
      Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the British interest that British Sugar should remain a British-owned company? Does he agree that foreign acquisition of it would be bad for employment and bad for British sugar beet growers?
      Mr. Curry: The ownership of British Sugar is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading. My function is to ensure that the interests of British beet farmers and British beet production are safeguarded. I shall pay close attention to that in the negotiations.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister discussed the representations concerning the future of the British sugar beet industry with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture?
      Mr. Curry: No, Sir.
      Sir William Clark: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to continue to import the present tonnages of cane sugar?
      Mr. Curry: Yes, I can give that assurance. The importation of 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar from the developing countries is important to the United Kingdom. It constitutes half our supply and a major outlet for cane producers. Next month, I shall address the ministerial meeting of the African, Caribbean and Pacific producers on precisely that subject.

      Salmonella
      Mr. Hardy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has met poultry farmers to discuss the problem of salmonella poisoning during the last six months.
      Mr. Maclean: Ministers and officials at my Department have, on a number of occasions, met and corresponded with individual poultry farmers and organisations on matters relating to salmonella.
      Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister fully aware of the serious anxiety and vulnerability of most egg producers? Is not their critical position compounded by the importation of

      1537
      foreign eggs, which may be dumped? Although they are subject to testing, is he aware that the rest of the batch of eggs not taken for testing will have been eaten long before the results of the test are known? Is not that ridiculous?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as has been stated many times in the House, we do not have the power to ban the importation of foreign eggs. Nevertheless, we have followed—and are keen to follow—the Select Committee's advice that we should redouble our efforts in the EC to achieve EC-wide salmonella controls. I am pleased to tell the House that those negotiations are proceeding apace. We expect to hear proposals from the Commission in May with a view to their being completed this year. That is the best safeguard that we can give to our producers and consumers.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's excellent efforts to achieve EC-wide safeguards against salmonella, will he bear in mind the fact that other European countries have a far lower standard of overall hygiene than we have? Will he ensure that nothing in the harmonisation process weakens the effects of the Food Safety Bill or the ability of the Government to safeguard our people against food poisoning?
      Mr. Maclean: The criticism at present is that we are making too strenuous efforts to control aspects of food poisoning. We do not intend to weaken our efforts to protect our consumers, irrespective of what products they are eating. We shall be stressing in Europe the need for Europewide controls to be placed as effectively in other EC countries as they are placed here.
      Mr. Lofthouse: What is the point of testing the eggs if the vast majority have already been eaten?
      Mr. Maclean: Because we can take up the matter immediately with the Government of the egg-producing country concerned—as we did when we found salmonella in eight consignments of eggs—and that Government can take the necessary action. That is the extent of what we can do under existing salmonella controls and that is why we want better ones. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the first two months of this year egg imports represented only 4 per cent. of eggs consumed. That is a small proportion of our egg supply.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister reassure me that rare breeds of hens will be safeguarded? They may require a special regulation. Their gene banks are very important.
      Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. There is no question of a special rare breed of bird being exterminated. However, I also give the House the assurance that anyone who sells eggs to the public for profit, whether those eggs come from rare brids or others, cannot expect to be exempt from the salmonella controls or from our public health measures.

      Fishing Industry
      Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from representatives of the west coast of Scotland fishing industry.
      Mr. Curry: In response to concerns expressed by west coast fishermen, we have issued a consultation document on fisheries management on the west coast.
      Mr. Macdonald: May I ask the Minister specifically about the proposal to allow the aggregation of licences? Will he take on board the concern expressed by west coast fishermen that that will simply mean that larger operations, usually on the east coast of Scotland, will buy up the smaller boats of the west coast? That will mean a loss of livelihood for west coast fishermen and will harm conservation in the long run.
      Mr. Curry: I wish to get the terminology straight. The proposals that we have just announced are for the aggregation of capacity, not licences. Even if we then proceed to adopt a consultation document on the aggregation of entitlements, it will not concern licences as such. We are a long way from a transferable licence, although, as I have always made clear, it is an option. The aggregation of capacity is a limited measure which aims to get fishermen away from the tight straitjacket of being unable to increase tonnage or horsepower at all. Fishermen can now buy a bigger boat and obtain the catching capacity entitlement that goes with a boat of that size. Fishing entitlement aggregation would be a more radical measure and would push more in the direction of the rationalisation of the fleet. However, we are committed to consulting widely before introducing such a measure.
      Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister understand that thousands of fish processing workers in the west of, and throughout, Scotland face a wage freeze in the current year? Does he appreciate that they are among the lowest-paid industrial workers in the country, in most cases earning £100 or less for a full week's work, at a time when inflation is pushing towards double digits? How long will it be before the Minister and his colleagues snap out of their complacency and introduce a crisis package of measures to stabilise the fortunes of the industry, onshore and offshore?
      Mr. Curry: What the hon. Gentleman means by crisis package of measures to stabilise the industry is that we should simply give it more money; that is his familiar theme. The action that we plan to take is, first, to make management more effective, with the series of measures that I outlined to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and, secondly, to tackle seriously the question of conservation. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that workers in the west coast processing industry would be much worse off if we did not manage our fisheries to ensure that there was fish to catch in the future.

      Grain
      Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations about the competitive position of bakers using north American grain in preference to European grain; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Curry: I have received no representations, but I am arguing for a reduction of the high levy imposed on north American wheat in the current price negotiations. The bread-making quality of home-produced wheat has

      1539
      improved to such an extent that we now use less than a tenth of the amount of imported grain that we were using 10 years ago.
      Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend do his utmost to achieve a reduction in agriculture tariffs at the forthcoming GATT talks so that quality bakers, such as Warburtons in my constituency, no longer have to pay a levy of £100 a tonne on imported north American high protein grains?
      Mr. Curry: We shall press to get levies down and the GATT talks will almost certainly result in a phased programme of cuts sustained over a number of years. Without that, I do not think that the GATT talks would succeed at all. I remind my hon. Friend that the stabiliser has produced three years of cuts in grain prices and that farmers are feeling the pinch. It is only fair to say that if we obtain the green pound devaluation for which we are aiming—in the United Kingdom, at least—grain prices will rise, which will put farmers on more equal terms with their competitors overseas.
      Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the major problem affecting competition with European grain producers is the enormous burden and disadvantage imposed on the home industry as a consequence of the gap between the green pound and sterling? Does he accept that the original proposal to cut the gap by one third is inadequate in relation to those commodities for which the difference is well over 10 per cent.?
      Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will see from the arrangements that were on the table when the price-fixing negotiations broke up a few weeks ago that the devaluation of one third had rather passed into history. We very much hope that when the negotiations resume, it will stay part of history.
      Mr. Andy Stewart: As British millers and bakers are buying wheat at 30 per cent. less in real terms than they were five years ago, does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time they passed on some of their good fortune to their customers?
      Mr. Curry: It is certainly true that the price of grain as a raw material for the bread maker has not increased recently. It is also true that we must strike a balance—that is what most politics is about—between the interests of the producer and the interests of the consumer. At the moment, it is the producers who believe that they face an injustice, and we are trying to correct that.

      Eastern Europe
      Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions following his recent visits to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.
      Mr. Curry: The principal purpose of my right hon. Friend's visits to Poland, Czeckoslovakia and Bulgaria was to support political and economic reform in those countries and to seek export opportunities for British business men.
      Mr. Field: As he is one of the foremost defenders of British fishing interests, will my hon. Friend allow me to congratulate him on organising a three-month course on
      1540
      fisheries management at Hull for Polish fisheries managers, at a cost to the British taxpayer of £133,000? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the size of the eastern bloc fishing fleet and as trawlers no longer have to eavesdrop on boring ministerial conversations and can concentrate instead on fishing, it is important that Britain leads the way in showing the eastern bloc fleet how to conserve its stocks rather than continue to plunder them recklessly?
      Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The project that he mentioned is an example of the carefully targeted aid that we envisage for eastern Europe. On eastern European fisheries capacity, EC resources are shared out according to track record and there is no case for allowing east European vessels to fish Community waters. I have made it clear at a number of Fisheries Councils that we will not allow Soviet, Polish or other vessels into the North sea.
      The West German fleet underfishes by about one third of its capacity and there is room for East Germany to take some of that quota without seeking any general allocation at European level. Of course, some eastern European waters might be available for western fisheries if East Germany joins the European Community.
      However, I completely agree with my hon. Friend; we are not in the business of giving away a scarce resource, particularly to those who might not be most attentive to its conservation.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give assurances that measures to help east European farmers will cause minimum disruption to the home industry, for example with regard to the bulk import of cheap fruit pulp? If the object of the exercise is to increase finance for east European farmers, would not it be more sensible to do that by fixing cross-border prices rather than by using the tariff system, which can cause great disruption to the home industry?
      Mr. Curry: When proposals were made to give concessions under the generalised system of preferences to Poland and Hungary, the United Kingdom argued that they should be restricted. We have since had close discussions about careful monitoring of the price arrangements. We can sustain imports provided that the prices are genuine and not dumping prices. We are in touch with the Commission and we will ensure that aid is specific and limited, that it will not damage our industry and that we do not make a greater contribution than anyone else to the necessary process of liberalisation in eastern Europe.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: During my right hon. Friend the Minister's extremely successful visit to eastern Europe, did he detect any enthusisam to revert to the old-fashioned and failed economic policies of socialism and communism, or did he find an enthusiasm to embrace many of the economic policies that our Government were the first to introduce in this country over the past 10 years?
      Mr. Curry: I understand that when Belisarius reconquered Italy, he coined the phrase, "If you seek a desert, look around you". I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister looked around eastern Europe and saw that 40 years of socialism had had the same effect. He gained no impression of an anxiety to revert to communism, but of a considerable anxiety to learn some of the elements of capitalism.

      Farm Animal Welfare Council
      Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he is expecting from the Farm Animal Welfare Council.
      Mr. Maclean: The Farm Animal Welfare Council has just started studies of the welfare of broiler chickens and of animals kept in extensive husbandry systems. I look forward to receiving the council's advice when this work has been completed.
      Dr. Howells: The Minister will be aware that the main recommendation of the February 1990 report from the council was that recommendations in earlier reports, which are still outstanding, should be implemented. He has not implemented those recommendations. Will he ignore the February 1990 report like he ignored all the others? Will he continue to allow animals to be subjected to misery?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are unfair and wrong. We received two reports in February which we are currently consulting on and studying. We have accepted the overwhelming majority of FAWC recommendations and many of them have already been put into legislative effect. I hope to lay before the House shortly detailed regulations on the slaughter of red meat animals and later this year regulations on the welfare of horses at markets. The hon. Gentleman must be careful before he makes erroneous comments to the effect that we have ignored FAWC reports.
      Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the acceptance of many FAWC recommendations has helped to ensure that this country has one of the best records on farm animal welfare in the European Community? In future changes in the welfare codes, will my hon. Friend try to ensure that those practices are extended, not just in this country, but throughout the European Community so that we do not export unacceptable husbandry practices?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. When we consider welfare in this country and the excellent FAWC reports, we accept that it is becoming increasingly important to extend those provisions to other EC countries. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister took a welfare initiative in the EC. We sent EC Commissioners a host of recommendations on animal welfare that we would like to be extended across the Community. If we like animals and believe in their welfare, it is not good enough simply to improve their lot in Britain and these islands; the morality must extend overseas, too.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that FAWC has the right to inspect and to report on puppy farms which, in certain instances, have been the cause of considerable abuse? What is the Government's latest thinking on that matter and what do they intend to do to tighten controls in that area?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about welfare on puppy farms. This is a matter for the Home Office, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is currently considering what action can be taken. I shall certainly pass on to him the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the previous question, will my hon. Friend take this issue seriously? There have been strong reports about puppy farming in west Wales and we have seen horrific photographs of emaciated dogs being cruelly treated. The matter causes great concern to my constituents and we need Government action immediately.
      Mr. Maclean: Those of us who like animals, and especially those of us who love dogs, agree with my hon. Friend that action is required. That is why my hon. Friend at the Home Office is considering what action can be taken. Having heard the views expressed in the House today, I shall be pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend that the House wants action on this matter.
      Mr. Ron Davies: May I remind the Minister that the February report on enforcement specifically recommended that the number of vets in the state veterinary service should be increased to allow them to discharge properly their responsibilities on animal welfare? Given that during the past 10 years the Government have reduced the number of vets in the state veterinary service by 25 per cent., yet, despite that, the Government still apparently have a commitment to animal welfare, will the Minister now undertake to accept that specific and direct recommendation in the FAWC enforcement report and ensure that the number of vets in the state veterinary service is increased?
      Mr. Maclean: I have made it clear that, having just received those reports, we are currently considering all the recommendations and are consulting widely on them. The hon. Gentleman should not be obsessed merely with the numbers employed in the state veterinary service. He should be more concerned about how effectively and efficiently it is carrying out its work. I am delighted to be able to tell him that its efficiency and effectiveness has improved considerably. I am proud of the excellent job that it does in all aspects of animal welfare and in enforcing the regulations.

      Sheep Fanners
      Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to ensure that the cash flow of sheep farmers is improved in the next 12 months.
      Mr. Curry: Our plans to pay two advances of sheep annual premium to producers in both less-favoured areas and other parts of the United Kingdom will help the cash flow of sheep farmers.
      Mr. Nicholson: That reply was welcome, as was my hon. Friend's recent visit to my constituency, where he gave an excellent speech to a conference organised by the Exmoor Society and when he made the valid point that no honest Government could guarantee the income of every farmer, irrespective of the circumstances. Will he confirm that his Department gives the highest priority to providing incentives to farmers to remain on the uplands, because farmers are our best conservationists?
      Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct and I am grateful for his kind remarks, despite the fact that it was raining heavily in his constituency at that time. The Government put considerable resources into the uplands,

      1543
      but we cannot guarantee the livelihoods of all farmers there. However, it is clear that society is putting a higher and higher price on conservation of the countryside, and it is in our interests to encourage farmers to take advantage of that and to add to their fundamental role as food producers, the role of being the guardians of the countryside, as we all appreciate.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the incomes of many sheep farmers are still being reduced because of the loss of stock and the worrying of stock by dogs? What is the Government's most recent estimate of the number of animals that are worried to death by dogs and how much does that cost farmers? Is not it high time that we had a proper dog registration scheme to encourage responsible dog owners and to stop some of the waste of animals' lives as a result of sheep worrying?
      Mr. Curry: Most sheep farmers in my constituency have a clear formula for dealing with dogs that worry sheep.
      Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Buckinghamshire there has been an outbreak of caseous lymphadenitis and that the disease affects sheep? Will he take this opportunity to reassure the House and all sheep farmers that his Ministry is taking all necessary precautions to make sure that the disease does not spread elsewhere?
      Mr. Curry: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The disease has been found in goats, but it has not yet spread to sheep. We have taken strict precautions to ensure that there is no risk to human health.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that the announcement that he made earlier about the advance payments is welcome as far as it goes? However, does he accept that a serious cash flow problem faces sheep producers in the uplands, particularly in areas such as the Scottish borders? Does he further accept that one of the best ways to solve cash flow problems faced by sheep producers is to take advantage of the flexibility that he still has within the hill livestock compensatory allowance mechanism, which at present affords a payment of only £7·50 per ewe, whereas the European Economic Community would allow a payment of £10·70 per breeding animal? Will the Government use that flexibility to eliminate some of the cash flow problems facing sheep producers?
      Mr. Curry: I am afraid that there is a Catch-22 in what the hon. Gentleman says. If we were to pay the full amount, the number of animals that would be eligible for the full payment under the headage limit would be reduced. We used the resources at our disposal to increase the HLCAs. We also argued for maximum flexibility in the European regulations. The hon. Gentleman must understand that our resources are limited. We shall always put them where they are most effective.

      National Farmers Union
      Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union; and what subjects were discussed.
      Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend last met the president of the National Farmers Union on 4 April, to discuss how the United Kingdom agriculture and food industry could best respond to recent developments in eastern Europe.
      Mr. Yeo: When my hon. Friend next meets the NFU, will he assure it of the Government's continuing and strenuous efforts to achieve a substantial devaluation in the green pound? Does he agree that when farmers in south Suffolk and elsewhere call for such a devaluation, they are merely asking for a chance to compete on equal and level ground with their continental counterparts?
      Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that we are seeking not to give British farmers an advantage but simply to curb some of the disadvantages that they suffer because of the problem with the green pound. At the same time, farmers should be realistic. Demands that we should devalue the green pound in one go are unrealistic. We shall do the best that we can, taking into account all the facts that must be considered.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: Did the Minister discuss with the president his predecessor's abolition last year of the guaranteed price for wool, which will have a disastrous effect on the economy of the hill farming areas? At this late stage, will he have another consultation with the chairman of the Wool Marketing Board to discuss the continuation of the scheme, which has operated so successfully in this country for the past 30 years?
      Mr. Curry: Of course, we have discussed the issue extensively with wool producers and, indeed, with the board. The measures that we propose command broad consensus. We are discussing what the guarantee should be for the current year and hope to decide it shortly. When we eventually introduce the legislation to abolish the guarantee, we expect that it will have broad support in the House.
      Mr. Hague: When my hon. Friend next meets the president of the NFU, will he be able to tell him when European Community Ministers will get round to agreeing not only a devaluation of the green pound, but the final instalment of this year's ewe premium, which is eagerly awaited in this country?
      Mr. Curry: I hope that I shall be able to do that. The premium is fixed by the management committee. At a meeting yesterday it was taken off the agenda by the Commission, as it was the previous month. We are pressing that the decision should be taken quickly so that we can pay the final instalment. I undertake to make sure that once agreement is reached we shall make the final payment within a month to the best of our abilities.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister say something about the impact of penal interest rates on the rural economy when he next meets the president of the NFU? Now that interest rate payments from the farming industry have reached a crippling £1,000 million a year and its level of indebtedness has increased threefold to £10,000 million since the Government came to power, does he think that the Conservative party will get any more credit from rural voters?
      Mr. Curry: I am disappointed to see that the hon. Gentleman has not used his recess to think of some new questions. I discuss a large number of matters with the

      1545
      president of the NFU, but few of his comments or the matters that I discuss with my farmers lead me to suspect that they are about to vote Labour. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The House may remember that just before the recess complaints were made about private conversations during Question Time. I hope that that will not happen now.

      Horses
      Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on measures available to protect horses and other equines from abuse; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Maclean: There are numerous measures that protect equines on common land, on farm, during transit and at export. We hope to introduce specific controls on horse markets in the next few months, and will press in the Community to retain controls on export of horses for slaughter.
      Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the horse is man's oldest and most faithful friend and that our history and prosperity have been borne on his back, but that horses will suffer severe and cruel deaths in the knackers' yards of Europe after 1992, unless suitable action is taken to replace British legislation on minimum values? Will he ensure that the Government will somehow get into place right across Europe proper legislation to safeguard horses, especially British horses, from cruel deaths?
      Mr. Maclean: I should think that only my two dogs would disagree with the first part of my hon. Friend's assertion about man's best friend. I can give him the absolute assurance that we are determined to fight as strongly as we can for the unique British system of minimum values for horses, because we are all aware of the strength of feeling that horses should be protected better than the present EC proposal suggests.
      Mr. Cryer: What are the Government doing to improve the EEC standards? Does the Minister accept that many people are worried about live animals exported for slaughter, because standards of care for animals throughout the Common Market vary and are often lower than United Kingdom standards? Is not it about time that the Government stood up to the EEC Commission and told it to get on with the job of improving standards, instead of capitulating on every occasion?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must decide which tack to take. Previously they have accused us of resisting too many EC proposals that we think are disadvantageous to the interests of this country. Now the hon. Gentleman's line is that we are capitulating. We shall not capitulate on animal welfare. We shall fight strenuously for our animals and their welfare at slaughter. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister recently took an initiative in the EC to extend the excellent British system throughout the EC. We shall argue for that.
      Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is nationwide anxiety that when our horses and ponies finish their useful lives they should not be allowed to be exported live for slaughter, with all the misery that that may entail?
      1546
      Does he think it intolerable that our European partners should force us to reduce our standards in any way? Will he please do his best to ensure that that does not happen?
      Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I urge him and our hon. Friends to lobby in the European Parliament and the European Commission, to show the extent of feeling in Britain for our unique system of minimum values. My hon. Friends and I are doing our bit, arguing to maintain the system, but we need the support of welfare organisations in this country and Europe to convince everyone that minimum values are good and should stay.

      Parrots
      Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken as a result of the hon. Member for Linlithgow's meeting with the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), on the import of parrots.
      Mr. Maclean: New measures on the import of exotic birds were announced last December following our publication of a detailed study of mortalities among imported birds on arrival and in quarantine.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is not man's best friend the parrot? In view of the fact that the 13 per cent. bird mortality in quarantine and on arrival is a fraction of the overall mortality, can we have an immediate ban imports pending the negotiations now taking place? Does the Prime Minister think that present Ministers are as active or energetic as the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson)?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), who met him in his office and took the initial initiative. If hon. Members read the speech before Christmas of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my reply to it at 4 o'clock in the morning, I should have thought that they would conclude that I was the hon. Gentleman's best friend. We are taking strenuous measures to control the importation of exotic birds and all the measures that I outlined in the debate in December are being pursued at this very moment.

    PRIME MINISTER

      Engagements
      Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.
      The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
      Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady explain why she thinks that it is fair that Mr. and Mrs. Thatcher of Dulwich will save £1,700 in poll tax as against rates this year when Mr. and Mrs. Donovan of Greater Manchester— Mr. Donovan is a retired laboratory technician and they are pensioners—will pay £531 more than they would have done, including transitional relief?
      The Prime Minister: I think that we should all be better off if we lived in good Tory authorities such as Westminster. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not be any net better off when I finish giving the extra away, nor shall I be any better off than I am now by not having taken something like £120,000 to which I am entitled on my salary.
      Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those who deliberately break the law by refusing to pay their community charge, leaving others to pick up the bill? Is not it deplorable that there are Members of the House who also practise that unlawful conduct? Surely such people are encouraged by the pop star antics and clenched fist salutes of the Leader of the Opposition.
      The Prime Minister: Everyone should obey the laws that have properly been passed through Parliament, as that is what the rule of law and democracy is about. Anyone who does not is setting a deplorable example, is also putting great burdens on others and is not in any way being democratic or observing the rule of law. Everyone should condemn such behaviour.
      Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister explain why the party of defence and law and order, which never believes that a single Labour soldier fought in the last war, now cannot even recognise a gun barrel?
      The Prime Minister: I should like to say first to the hon. Gentleman that everyone is grateful to all those who fought in the last war; without them we should not now be free. So far there has never been a gun barrel made with an aperture of I m wide, which is the diameter of the proposed Iraqi pipe.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that Ford's investment of £400 million in south Wales is a sign of investors' confidence in Britain under her Government? Does she further agree that the fact that Ford is spending some of its investment abroad because of previous trade union intransigence is a clear sign that investors are worried about the future and of what investors would do if this country were ever again to be dominated by the Labour party's trade union paymasters?
      The Prime Minister: We do indeed welcome Ford's investment at Bridgend and Swansea, phase 1 of the Zeta project, which will help to sustain employment in south Wales. We very much regret that Ford chose to take the second part of that project to Cologne because, in the words of its press release,
      "Another factor in reaching the decision … has been the need to ensure continuity of supply to our continental plants."
      1548
      As Ford could not ensure continuity of supply from south Wales because of the activities of the unions, it was not prepared to put another factory there. The unions have driven Ford away twice—once from Dundee and once from the Zeta 2 project in south Wales.
      Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister say why there has been no effective response from any part of the Government to the inquiries made since 1988 about the Iraqi gun contract by Sheffield Forgemasters, Walter Somers and her hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller)?
      The Prime Minister: The point remains that at no time did either firm apply for an export licence for a gun or other military application. If the firms had done so, the application would have been refused.
      Mr. Kinnock: That is not an adequate answer on such an issue. As Head of the Government, will the Prime Minister say whom she holds responsible for this shambles over the Iraqi gun contract? Which Minister must bear the blame?
      The Prime Minister: Any company wanting to export something that requires an export licence has a duty to apply for that licence. At no time did either firm apply for an export licence for a gun or other military application. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said yesterday, the enormous lm wide pipes that the firms were making were described in a totally different fashion and at no time did they apply for an export licence for a gun or other military equipment. Had they done so, the application would have been refused. It is their duty to apply if they are exporting something that needs a licence.
      Mr. Kinnock: That is the most devious evasion. The testimony of the right hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has shattered the idea that the Government did not know about this during the past two years. I repeat: which Minister is to blame?
      The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ever listens to replies. If a company wishes to export something that needs an export licence—military equipment does—it is its duty accurately to describe it and to apply for an export licence for what it is exporting. No such application came for a gun or other military application. That is the fault of the companies seeking to export the product.
      Mr. Hunter: In forming her policies towards South Africa and the African National Congress, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that less than two years ago the ANC publicly announced that it would accept funds from the IRA? Will she personally look into reports coming from Northern Ireland that on Wednesday 4 April two members of the ANC named Sabblae and Karoo were in Downpatrick, County Down, meeting the head of the IRA in South Down and other members?
      The Prime Minister: I am certain that my hon. Friend will have checked the facts that he gives. He knows that we never, never support armed struggle, no matter by whomsoever it is proposed, and the ANC stands for armed struggle and continues to do so. In our view it is time to get

      1549
      down, not to rhetoric but to the nitty gritty of negotiations, and to do that in South Africa with the existing South African Government.
      Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister list for the House her reasons for opposing local income tax, raised through the revenue system, as a replacement for poll tax? Does not she realise that it would be easier, fairer, simpler and cheaper to raise than the poll tax, and just as accountable, and that it operates in many countries with full public support? Does not she see that local income tax as a replacement for poll tax is a way out of her and Britain's poll tax nightmare?
      The Prime Minister: There are several reasons why local income tax would not work. First, it is usually dealt with not where a person lives, but where he works, which, for many people, is a different place. PAYE is done in the firm for which a person works, which may be different from the place in which he lives.
      Secondly, many people would not wish to divulge all their affairs again to local authorities, and they would have to do so. Those are two good reasons for not having a local income tax.

      EC Budget
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the size of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community budget; and if she will make a statement.
      The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so. The Fontainebleau 1984 mechanism remains wholly intact. Our cumulative benefit from it will be some £7·5 billion by the end of 1990.
      Mr. Taylor: As last year's record contribution of £2 billion, or £3 a week for each British family, was outrageous, will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that had she not battled so furiously for rebates in 1984, that amount would have been at least 50 per cent. higher—and this at a time when she was accused of being negative, unhelpful and unenthusiastic about Europe?
      As almost everyone seems to be having a go at her these days, will my right hon. Friend also make it abundantly clear that she will maintain her courageous battle for Britain against socialist nonsense and overspending in the EEC? Will she totally ignore the views of the wimps and Euro-nuts among the Opposition—and even among the Conservative party—who are seeking to blow her off course?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We fought staunchly for Britain's rebate. We started off, to coin a phrase, by being isolated and we came back with £7·5 billion for Britain.
      Mr. Spearing: Will the Prime Minister confirm that in addition to financial matters, she and the Foreign Secretary will discuss the Belgian proposals for European union with other Ministers from the Common Market when they meet in Dublin over the next two weekends? Does she agree that these issues render the prerogative an increasingly outdated idea, and accordingly, will she tell Mr. Haughey when she meets him tomorrow that she is not prepared to give any view on, still less any commitment to, that paper unless it has been debated in this House? Does not she think that anything less than that represents an unacceptable democratic deficit in the United Kingdom?
      The Prime Minister: There are now two matters: one is European monetary and economic union; another has been proposed informally by Chancellor Kohl and concerns political union. Neither matter is properly defined, but in so far as economic and monetary union was defined in the Delors paper, in stages 2 and 3, this House has already made its view clear: we could not possibly accept stage 2 or stage 3 of Delors as they stand, although we accept stage 1. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] We accept stage I and its completion and we are well ahead with completing it in this country.
      In our view there are plenty of other matters to discuss in Dublin—the consequences of German unification, completing the single market in 1992, bringing the Uruguay round to a successful conclusion, especially on agriculture, completing the EEC-European Free Trade Association negotiations, and devising new forms of association for the countries of eastern Europe. If we got down to discussing those matters, that would be far better than discussing more esoteric issues that do not need to be addressed now.

      Engagements
      Sir John Stokes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is Primrose day, the anniversary of the death of Benjamin Disraeli, that great Conservative statesman? Does she recollect that he used to say that one of the principal aims of the Tory party was to improve the condition of the people? Is not that precisely what my right hon. Friend and the Government are doing?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In terms of net take-home pay, for every £3 that the average family had under Labour, it has £4 under the Conservatives. Britain has a higher rate of employment and a far better Health Service and environment than ever before. That would have suited Disraeli and I am glad to pay tribute to him on Primrose day.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 APRIL AND TUESDAY 24 APRIL— Consideration in Committee of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (1st and 2nd Allotted Days).
WEDNESDAY 25 APRIL—Opposition day (11th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The poll tax, the uniform business rate and local government services".
Remaining stages of the War Crimes Bill.
THURSDAY 26 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to the automobile industry. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 27 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 3o APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
[Thursday 26 April: Relevant European Community Document: 10971/89 Single Motor Vehicle Market Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee: HC
11-xii (1989–90) para 2.]
Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his proposal that the House should take the remaining stages of the War Crimes Bill after 10 pm? It is not usual for us to consider primary legislation after 10 pm in the House. We regard that as an unacceptable proposal, and I hope that he will take it away and think again about it.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House some more explanation about the likely course of events when we come to consider the amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on Tuesday night? Is he aware that it appears that the House will be asked to vote on perhaps 14 consecutive amendments, taking four or more hours of voting time during the night? Is it reasonable or rational to ask the House of Commons to determine such important, controversial and sensitive issues in that way? I hope that we can have some explanation from the Leader of the House of why the House is being placed in that position.
Is not Parliament entitled to some clarification from the Secretary of State for rade and Industry following his statement yesterday about the Iraqi gun fiasco? Should not we have some urgent and candid answers from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence to the many unanswered questions which remain following the exchanges in the House yesterday?
For example, who will explain the widely differing versions of events given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir. H. Miller)? I hope that the Leader of the House will soon provide Government time for a debate so that we can have proper answers to those questions to make up for the pathetically inadequate performance given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Chamber yesterday.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course I understand why the Gentleman raises his first point. However, it is important for the House to get ahead with the business at convenient opportunities. The House had a full day's debate on the general principles of the War Crimes Bill on Second Reading on 19 March. No amendments have been made to the Bill in Committee, and no Government amendments are proposed on Report. In those circumstances, what I have proposed should be reasonable.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman raised his point about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, but he will know that there has been extensive consultation about the handling of the Bill, both through the usual channels and with a wide range of other representatives. I do not expect to have commanded universal assent to that, but I believe that I have arrived at conclusions that are the best practicable arrangements.
It is important for us to tackle the central questions in an orderly fashion, and together. Again, we have considered through the usual channels and in other ways the possibility of separating them, but that has given rise to anxiety that hon. Members might vote on one part of the debate and not remain closely involved to vote on the other part. We have arrived at the conclusion that this is the best way to do it. I appreciate that considerable time may be spent on voting, but if we address the matter sensibly we should be able to reduce the number of contested votes. I believe that it will be regarded in the end as more satisfactory to do that than to spend a great deal of time debating without reaching a conclusion, as has happened so often in the past.
As for the questions about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he made a statement to the House yesterday describing all that was then known about the matter. The components in question were apprehended as a result of alertness once the matter became known. It is in the nature of things that exports of that type take place against a background of subterfuge and concealment, not least on the part of the orderers, and those concerned with supply are not always fully informed of what is happening or how they should be handling the matter. The Government have apprehended the components, and further investigations must take place. If it is thought right to tell the House any more about the matter at any future stage, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider doing so.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I point out that no fewer than 49 hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to take part in the subsequent Hong Kong debate? I hope that hon. Members will put only one question each to the Leader of the House, and confine it to next week's business.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome his decision on dealing with the abortion question next Tuesday night? At last there will be a decision without obstruction. It is worth voting, if necessary for four hours, to clear the matter up.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is the other side of the argument.
Mr. William Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there is a prayer concerning the Criminal Damage (Compensation)

1553
(Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1990. Will he find time for a full debate on the matter? The regulations have been with us for a long while, and it is about time that the House explored the matter once more to come to conclusions on certain inequities that are beginning to show up.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot say more than that I will examine the matter closely in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In next Wednesday's debate initiated by the Opposition on the community charge and the uniform business rate, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the the Secretary of State for the Environment to remind the House that, of the totality of local government expenditure, a sizeable amount is met through national taxation, and that therefore ability to pay—a matter widely referred to in the press and in the House recently—is already a matter carefully taken into account by Her Majesty's Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly draw that important point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Cook: Did the Leader of the House watch the programme on television last night in the "Inside Story" series called, "Our Reactor is on Fire"? If he or those in his Department did not see it, I offer him a copy of the programme and ask him to look at it and take note of how the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of the day were duped by the nuclear industry and how the Black inquiry, which was set up specifically to look into health problems of that community on the Cumbrian coast, was deliberately kept in ignorance. If he cannot initiate a debate next week in Government time, will the Leader of the House allow the House an early opportunity to discuss the degree of mendacity that the nuclear industry visited on what appears to have been a supine Government in the past?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the judgment that the hon. Gentleman makes on the entire industry, nor, I suspect, does the shadow Leader of the House. The safety of the industry, and of Sellafield in particular, has been subject to continuous scrutiny by the Health and Safety Executive authorities and the Government.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I accept that next Wednesday's debate on local government finance and the community charge arises on an Opposition motion, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that during that debate, the powers that be in the Government produce proposals to remove the inadequacy of the current rebate scheme and the transitional relief scheme and to raise the £3,000 limit at which the taper begins to make what is in principle a good change in local government finance acceptable to the people?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity offered by the debate to make those points. He might also take the opportunity to comment on the fact that the Opposition are now apparently dedicated to maintaining the community charge for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his answer to my
1554
hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the Iraqi gun incident and the answers that were given yesterday by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has developed a new doctrine that Ministers can refuse to answer a question because there may be a case pending in the courts? You, Mr. Speaker, were right to say that it was not a matter for you, but it is a matter for Members of Parliament, as that would mean that. in future any Minister in any Government could refuse to answer a question because there might be a court case pending. Therefore, it is a matter for the House of Commons, and we should be debating it. I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his answer and to provide a early debate on that aspect of the matter as well as the particular incident.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the matter spreads as widely as the hon. Gentleman suggests. One can well imagine that in other circumstances, a Minister would be unable to comment on every aspect of a matter that is still the subject of inquiry for a variety of reasons including the possibility of criminal proceedings. In those circumstances, there must be some inhibition, but, as I have said already, if a suitable means arises, I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to came back to the House.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, at Question Time yesterday, the Minister for Industry made a significant statement about the huge increase in Britain's car manufacturing capacity? In the circumstances, despite what is happening at Ford, does he agree that we should have a debate on the industry soon, as one of the great success stories of recent years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend. The continuing expansion of our automobile manufacturing capability is an important achievement of the past 10 years.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Happily, the Government have now accepted the intention of my Bill, supported by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties in the House, to give the peoplp of Australia one of the two original copies of their Constitution Act. While I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House for their most helpful discussions with me on the legislation, is there anything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can tell us today about the timing of its passage through the House? Could we possibly mark ANZAC day on 25 April by completing in this House at least one stage of the Bill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have seen that suggestion made, although on a rather more ambitious basis. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the timing proposals for that Bill; nor would I want to raise any expectations of the kind that he has identified. I shall certainly see whether it is possible.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: When my right hon. and learned Friend is discussing next Wednesday's debate with the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he ask him to deal at length with transferring the whole cost of education, or at least

1555
teachers' salaries, from local authorities to the central Exchequer? Will he also deal with the plight of village shops, which is a very real one?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will draw both points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I cannot resist the opportunity to say yet again to my hon. Friend what I said during the Easter Adjournment debate: merely transferring the financing of this or that aspect of any activity to central Government amounts to no more than a book-keeping transaction.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Leader of the House arrange a further debate following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller)? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that his Department was not aware of the gun contract with Iraq. He will be further aware that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), a former deputy chairman of the Conservative party, did not agree with him. He said that he had informed the Department twice about the gun but that he had had to go elsewhere to get some action.
Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that this matter needs clearing up for the benefit of the House and of the country, to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are clearly matters that can be further examined, but I do not honestly think that it is sensible for us to do so across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? Almost everyone agrees that the principle of the community charge is right, that everyone should pay something, but most people will agree that at the least, the first year's implementation has been unfortunate. Will my right hon. and learned Friend insist on the Secretary of State for the Environment—the Government realise the need for this—announcing proposals in his speech next week for reform and change, because it is time that they were debated?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am more ready to endorse my hon. Friend's warm welcome for the principle of the community charge than the rest of his remarks, but I shall bring his observations to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As the Leader of the House has found himself unable to arrange debates on some of the many outstanding statutory instruments that are the subject of prayers on the Order Paper, will he give the House an undertaking that important issues such as the Police (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations—police officers have been considerably financially prejudiced as a result of the poll tax regulations—and the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations will be debated in Committee next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give a specific undertaking in respect of either of those matters—certainly not for next week. I understand that there is widespread interest in the
1556
police regulations and I shall seek through the usual channels to find an opportunity for them to be discussed in due course.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: May we have a debate on Lithuania? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the widespread concern about the reaction of the Soviet authorities? Is he further aware of the feeling that the EEC and the Government must come up with some initiatives for aid? May we have a debate in the near future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will understand my hon. Friend's expression of concern. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Twelve during their meeting this weekend.
Mr. Michael Foot: Following the extremely important question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), and as this matter affects the rights of the House against the Executive, will the Leader of the House, first, say when the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General will make a statement on the legal aspects of the matter? Secondly, will he give an absolute guarantee that the Minister concerned will appear before the House if there is to be no legal case, because he took refuge in the fact that there would be one? We think that it was quite improper that he should have done so, but if he is to proceed, he must explain himself to the House.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether the Law Officers would be the most appropriate Ministers to respond on a matter that is the subject of possible proceedings by the Customs and Excise rather than by the Law Officers' Department. The matter is still under investigation in that way. The right hon. Gentleman should not conclude that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is taking refuge in the prospect of a prosecution. He is merely saying that certain matters are subject to investigation for a possible prosecution, about which it would not be sensible to comment at this stage.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) about Lithuania, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Foreign Secretary, in a statement after the weekend EC meeting, makes it perfectly clear that the Government endorse the view of the United States President that Lithuania enjoys an unequivocal right to self-determination, and that the western European powers will provide practical assistance in every reasonable way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is here, and will have listened to that point. He will certainly consider with me the possibility of a statement about the matter next week, and he certainly bears in mind my hon. Friend's points of argument.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When we have a debate on the Iraqi gun, as the Leader of the House implied that we should, will it be in order to point out that the reasons why we have this shambles are the free market philosophy operated by the Government and the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has gone on record on many occasions as saying that he wants to see

1557
the Department of Trade and Industry completely abolished? It is because he has not been keeping his eye on things that we have this mess now.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There were two misunderstandings in that short observation. First, I gave no suggestion of a prospect of a debate on the matter. Secondly, it is foolish to contend that the possibility of promoting the supply of arms to any customer is greater or lesser under any given pattern of economic organisation. By definition, such activities take place covertly and such people set out to find arms wherever they can. It is always the task of the Government to try to detect that, but it is by no means easy.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Could my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on tourism? Some months ago, a decision was made to exempt people who run bed-and-breakfast businesses from the uniform business rate for up to 100 days a year. That has created a major burden for others in the industry, especially in my constituency. We have not had a tourism debate for a considerable time, so will my right hon. and learned Friend please find time for a debate as soon as possible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure about the prospect of a debate on tourism. However, my hon. Friend will see that the uniform business rate is one of the subjects selected by the Opposition for debate next Wednesday.
Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind the fact that virtually every newspaper today carries comments by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) that someone in Whitehall has been lying about the export order for Iraq, is not it essential that we have a statement early next week from the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? The statement should tell us precisely what the responsibilities of those Departments were when the hon. Member for Bromsgrove made representations on behalf of a firm in the west midlands and when that firm said that the pipes might well not be pipes, but parts of a gun. Surely the House of Commons is entitled to know about those matters. Why is there this cover-up, evasion and deceit from Ministers and everyone else on this matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should not dramatise the matter in that way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House yesterday. The possibility of a criminal offence is being investigated in the light of some of his observations. It is entirely proper that that should happen.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the pressure on time today, I ask hon. Members not to ask questions that have already been asked and answered, but to ask about business next week.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is not it a little quixotic that the House found a whole day to debate the breach of some informal rules by one Conservative Member, but is still unable to find time to debate the conduct of 31 Labour Members who are breaking the law? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the inaction of the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked for one question per Member.
Mr. Brazier: The inaction of the Leader of the Opposition on the subject is incredible.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend. The important point that he raises has been raised frequently in the House, and rightly so.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Home Secretary be making a statement next week on some of the recent decisions in courts in the Irish Republic—particularly the decision in the Dublin criminal court which was reported in a Dublin newspaper on 1 April, in which a person who was up for a stabbing offence was told that he must go to England to take a job immediately? Is there a "sin bin" here? Are our immigration laws so open that people can come here to escape justice?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not one of the more familiar cases in the Irish jurisdiction, but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Peter Fry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, following the Opposition's choice of the community charge as the subject for debate next Wednesday, it is high time that the Government found time for a time for a debate on the future of local government organisation, as it is becoming increasingly clear that two tiers of local government are unnecessarily wasteful and that the present system causes confusion, with district councils being blamed for overspending by county councils?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The present arrangements certainly can give rise to such misunderstandings, but I would hesitate to conclude that that in itself is sufficient to persuade us to embark on the wholesale reform of local government.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the poll tax of £297 set by my council, Calderdale, was 34th from the bottom of the league and that, when the charge is capped, it will be fourth from the bottom? May we have a full day's debate on the matter, so that the Secretary of State for the Environment can explain how he arrived at the ludicrous decision to cap Calderdale council?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, his approach was founded on the principles that he set out to the House when he made his statement. The hon. Lady will be able to raise the matter in next week's debate.
Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that, on 29 March, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) called for a debate on Barnet's housing policy, claiming that the chief solicitor had said that Barnet council was liable for prosecution under the Race Relations Act 1976. May we have such a debate soon, as the head of legal services of Barnet council claims that he said no such thing? Is not it disgraceful that the hon. Member for Brent, East should make such misleading statements?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that I do not have the details of the matter at my fingertips to quite the same extent as my hon. Friend, but I am grateful to him for reminding me of the subject.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have a debate on no-strike agreements? Does the Leader of the House think that it is fair that those who provide cheap labour in the dining rooms and elsewhere in the Refreshment Department of the House should be prevented from taking industrial action? Is that fair, given that they earn so little?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That matter, so often raised by the hon. Gentleman, will be considered by the House of Commons Commission shortly.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that this year is Tidy Britain Year. May we have an early debate on tidiness and keeping litter off our streets, especially as I am sorry to have to report that I have received a complaint from her worship the mayor of Weymouth and Portland that she has seen the House with litter strewn all over its floors? Should not we be setting an example? I should be most grateful if we could have a debate on this subject.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that, over the centuries, many people have had some sympathy with that view, but I fear that the House's deplorable habit of occasionally leaving paper behind could not be corrected very quickly.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the Leader of the House had time to look at the 14 private Bills set down for consideration today and again deferred until next Thursday? Does he recall that, about six months ago, he told the House that he would be urgently considering the whole question of private business? Is not it time that he reported back to the House and told us what progress he has made in that investigation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to remind me of the matter. He knows that I am engaged in discussions about it, and I hope to report to the House before long.
Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that, now that the Russians have admitted to the massacre of 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn Wood, it would be right for the House to have a debate on the Polish Resettlement Act 1947, and that the best memorial that the British taxpayer could erect to those gallant murdered officers would be to provide financial aid to Polish people who settled in this country and who now wish to return to their native land?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not had an opportunity to consider that proposal. I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends for further consideration.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence next week before Operation Elder Forest begins? That operation will subject many areas, especially the north-east of Scotland, to further bouts of low-flying aircraft. Does the Leader of the House understand that, next week, Scottish schoolchildren will be taking certificate examinations and that next Wednesday they will sit the English exam, one of the most popular exams, when the exercise will be at its height?
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State for Defence explain why the exercise has been arranged for such an inconvenient time and also tell us who was responsible for organising it for next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can only draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and I will do so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since some of the issues are outwith the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and since he phoned me asking for an apology about a question that I had asked on American complaints about him, before it festers any further, could the position of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) be clarified by a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the complaints received—or not—by the Ministry of Defence?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand it, those matters are being investigated by the two Select Committees concerned. However, I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Leader of the House clarify the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier about the debate on Tuesday? Many of us have heard rumours about how the Leader of the House particularly intends to address the voting patterns. It seems to some of us that, if those rumours are true, in addition to giving way to pressure to include that matter—which many of us believe is far outwith the terms of the Bill—the Leader of the House is in fact giving way to other pressures so that the House will not be able to approach the issue in a fair and open-minded way, but would have a strong bias built into it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady will know that the way in which that matter is being handled has, as I have said already, been the subject of the widest possible consultation. Decisions about management will be taken by the Chair and by the Business Committee. It is my impression that the approach that I have so far outlined has the support of the majority of hon. Members.
Mr. Brian Wilson: As was implicitly recognised in a written answer just before the Easter recess, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have inadvertently misled the House on a number of occasions because of the poverty statistics with which they have been provided. Ministers have been provided with statistics that appear to show that the poorest people in our communities have become more prosperous at twice the rate of the community as a whole. The Government now tell us that that is almost diametrically opposite the truth, and that their rate of increased prosperity has actually been less than that in the country as a whole. As Government policy has presumably been predicated on the false assumption that the statistics provided by the Prime Minister were correct, may we have a statement on the whole affair?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I doubt whether that is an appropriate question for business questions, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend

1561
the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Government set out the matter quite clearly in the written answer to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, share the concern of friends and families, including Jill Morrell, of British hostages? While supporting a policy of no deals, they are nevertheless concerned about the urgency that they believe the Government attach to solving the problem. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his capacity as Leader of the House, offer an early opportunity for the Government at least to give an indication that they attach urgency and priority to reaching a conclusion to that serious problem—in spite of the delicacy of the matter, which the House will accept?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fully understand why the friends and families of people who have been hostages for a long time feel continuous anxiety of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I must reassure him and them that that topic is almost never absent from the minds of Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Office Ministers. It is a matter of great and continuing anxiety to see whether there is anything further that can be done to explore possibilities. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is not always sensible to advertise that continuing concern with the matter. He can assure all those concerned that the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers share their anxiety.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Ordered,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 758) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Darrell.]

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order relates to the Procedure (Debate on Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision) resolution, which the House passed on 23 July 1963. You may recall that yesterday the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
"I cannot answer detailed questions without prejudicing the rights of people who may be on trial."—[Official Report, 18 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1429.]
In spite of that, this morning, the Yorkshire Post reported that Customs and Excise are "not actively considering prosecutions".
However, this is not a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry because, on the date to which I have referred, the House passed, without Division, a resolution setting out the circumstances in which matters awaiting judicial decision can be referred to. It states:
"matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction …should not be referred to … from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court".
Therefore, there is a clear definition, The resolution also states:
"such matters may be referred to before such date unless it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case."
There therefore seems to be a responsibility on you Mr. Speaker, where a Minister tries to abuse the resolution and to escape the accountability of the House over matters that are his responsibility, that you should make it clear whether it appears to you
"that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case"
if a Minister attempts to seek that excuse. However, as there is no case and no trial, no Minister could possibly use that excuse. Surely, therefore, it is incumbent on the Chair to ensure that the terms of that resolution are properly carried out and that a Minister does not try to evade his responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker: There is no question of that matter being sub judice. That was not raised with me yesterday. The hon. Gentleman has quoted Hansard to me, but he will also note that I said at column 1437 that
"I understood that it was the judgment of the Secretary of State himself"
that he could not answer those questions. I never said that it was sub judice.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are in danger of creating an unwelcome precedent in the House as a result of the conduct yesterday of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who abused the procedures of the House to avoid answering very important questions, to which hon. Members of all parties are entitled to candid, frank and urgent answers. The conduct of the Secretary of State yesterday has been described in one prominent newspaper today as either incompetent or dishonest.
As these matters go right to the heart of the integrity of this Government when answering for their actions in he House of Commons, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will not simply let this matter slip away, so that such a

1563
precedent will have been established. We should have the ability, without an artificial hindrance placed before us by Ministers, to obtain answers to such important questions.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) got it right—that I said yesterday that, provided what Ministers or any other hon. Members say is in order it is not a matter for me. It is not for me to say if the Secretary of State's judgment was correct. I never said that the matter was sub judice, and it is not.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take Mr. Budgen first.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give the House your guidance on the second motion relating to the main business of the day, the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill? You will note that the Order Paper contains a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition:
"That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."
Wholly different, separate and important considerations attach to that motion and hon. Members might take a different view on it than on the Second Reading motion. Will there be opportunities for a separate debate on the second motion?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he has often seen these motions on the Order Paper. It is not debatable, but it is certainly votable. I will now take Mr. Skinner. I hope that his point of order will not delay an important debate. The position has marginally improved. Now, only 48 hon. Members wish to take part.
Mr. Skinner: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and subsequently to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the Shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), you said that it was not your responsibility, notwithstanding the points that have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. It is pretty clear to Opposition Members that yesterday we had a Minister present who used the opportunity to cloud the issue and wriggle away from his responsibilities. If in future you spot that and realise that a Minister is trying to use the sub judice rule wrongly, perhaps you could consider giving extra time to hon. Members who want to grill the Minister, instead of allowing him to escape his responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker: I know what the hon. Member is trying to return to—the question of how long I allowed the statement to run yesterday. I hope that some of his hon. Friends who could not speak in the subsequent debate yesterday as a result of points of order had a word with him.

Orders of the Day

  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I repeat that there is great pressure to take part in the debate today. In the interests of equity, I proposed to give some precedence to hon. Members who were not called when we last debated this matter in July. I hope that Privy Councillors will understand that they may suffer thereby by being called later on the list. I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but I hope that those who are called before that time will bear that limit in mind in the interests of their colleagues in the House.
  4.12 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I hardly need remind the House that, although since the second world war Britain has granted independence to many former colonies, rarely have we had to make plans for handing over a territory to a foreign power, and never to a communist one. I certainly do not have to remind the House that the remarkable story of Hong Kong's economic success is one in which our own country has been and is intimately involved. Quite apart from what many, if not most, of us might regard as our moral duty to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong up to 1997 and to secure a smooth changeover in that year, Britain has an enormous stake, in terms of trade, investment and jobs, in Hong Kong's continuing success. This is a case, if ever there was one, where duty and the national interest march hand in hand.
  It is with Britain that responsibility for Hong Kong rests over the next seven years. We must do our best to see that as long as we remain responsible for the territory, its prosperity and stability are maintained. That is what this Bill is about. I emphasise that our proposals, far from contravening the joint declaration signed in 1984, are designed to carry out the agreement's central purpose, which is to maintain Hong Kong's prosperity and stability in the run-up to 1997.
  The Bill addresses a real and present threat to that objective. There are plenty of people who still want to go and live in Hong Kong—largely people without skills wanting to reap the economic benefits of making their homes there—but there are also many people leaving, who include professional, managerial and technical personnel in proportions far in excess of their numbers in the population. Indeed, 24 per cent. of all emigrants come within those categories, but represent only 5·5 per cent. of Hong Kong's population. Thirteen per cent. of Hong Kong's information science professionals—a classification which includes computer experts—have been leaving each year. Hong Kong's economy and stability cannot indefinitely survive such a haemorrhage of talent and enterprise.
  The rationale for the proposals now before the House remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement on 20 December. First, current rates of emigration and reduced confidence pose a real

  1565
  threat to Hong Kong's stability in the period before 1997. Secondly, most of those who are emigrating do so reluctantly, because it is the only means of acquiring the assurance of a foreign passport. Thirdly, most of them would remain if such an assurance were available without the need to leave Hong Kong.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance to my constituents, most of whom must live in an already overbuilt area and are under severe pressure from Ealing council to build on such green land as remains? Can the Home Secretary assure me that overbuilt areas such as mine will not be pressed into taking even greater populations than they already have to bear and that provision will be made elsewhere?
  Mr. Waddington: I shall develop that theme later. First and foremost, this is not an immigration Bill, but a nationality Bill which is designed to anchor people to Hong Kong rather than to encourage them to come here. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that if the people selected were to come here they would have superior skills and be far less likely to concentrate in large numbers in city centres than, perhaps, people with lesser skills.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has correctly said that the Government's objective is to make it possible for people to stay in Hong Kong. I ask him to put himself in the position of a Hong Kong business man aged between 35 and 40 who has the great good fortune to get a British passport. Such a man, having heard what is being said in communist China now, may feel that that may be a black mark against him when the communist Chinese take over in 1997. Would he not feel disposed to leave Hong Kong early so that he can re-establish his business, his family and his fortune?
  Mr. Waddington: I disagree with my hon. Friend. Once a person in a good, well-paid job in Hong Kong has the assurance of a British passport, there is no urgency for him to leave. We must not assume that the worst will happen. Under the joint declaration those who are in Hong Kong after 1997 will have the right to work, the right of abode and the right to travel to and from Hong Kong.
  I fully recognise that the remedy which the Bill offers represents an unprecedented departure from the normal principles of our nationality law. We considered carefully whether a scheme leading to entry clearance rather than full citizenship would suffice, but we concluded that such a scheme would not resolve the problem. It would have precisely the opposite effect to that intended and would draw to the United Kingdom the people who were given guarantees. They would be anxious to get their children into Britain while the children were still under age and qualified for entry under the immigration rules. They would be determined to establish the residential qualification for citizenship as soon as possible.
  The governor of Hong Kong is convinced that the assurances of citizenship provided in the Bill are the only effective way of restoring confidence and maintaining prosperity, and all the evidence emerging from Hong Kong supports that.
  Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to register up to 50,000 persons recommended by the governor under a scheme approved by Parliament and also to register their
  1566
  spouses and minor children. Clause 3(3) provides for a committee to advise the governor on the operation of the scheme. Obviously in arriving at the figure of 50,000 the governor—rather than the Government—has had to make a difficult judgment, but discussions—
  Mr. George Foulkes: Sigmund Freud at work.
  Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman would wait just a moment he would not make as big a fool of himself as he did on television last night.
  Discussions with Hong Kong since December have reinforced my view that we have got it about right. The figure of 50,000 is a number which is capable of having a real impact on emigration and confidence in the territory, and that is what matters.
  Clearly, citizenship granted to the head of a family would be unlikely to anchor him to Hong Kong if citizenship were not granted also to his immediate family, but it is obviously impossible to provide in the Bill for a limit on the number of wives and children. My right hon. Friend has, however, given an estimate of the absolute maximum number of people who might benefit, which is 225,000.
  The 50,000 would be a carefully chosen and highly qualified group of people—in good jobs, earning good salaries. If they decided to settle in the United Kingdom they would doubtless have a valuable contribution to make here. But that is not the purpose of the Bill. It is a Bill designed to persuade them to remain in Hong Kong rather than go off elsewhere in the coming years to acquire another nationality as a sort of insurance policy.
  Dr. Michael Clark: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about establishing confidence and keeping prosperity in Hong Kong. Does he concede that it is important that the Chinese Government should make some moves to ensure that those two attributes stay in Hong Kong? Does he also concede that by putting the Bill before the House he is taking pressure off the Chinese who will see that we are giving relief to Hong Kong while they do nothing?
  Mr. Waddington: Obviously there is a joint responsibility. The Chinese Government have a responsibility as a result of what they undertook to do under the joint declaration, but there is also a duty on us. I should have thought that that was plain.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: How will the Bill provide an assurance for the 93·5 per cent. of those eligible under the general allocation section as set out in the explanatory memorandum? That figure ranges from the 79 per cent. of those involved in the information services to the 96·1 per cent. of those involved in the education services who will not receive a passport under the scheme. How will they be encouraged to stay in Hong Kong as a result of the Bill?
  Mr. Waddington: We will give assurances to people who play a key role in the Hong Kong economy. Anchoring those people to Hong Kong will help to maintain its stability and prosperity. The maintenance of that prosperity and stability will be to the advantage of all those others who have not been selected under the scheme.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has been extremely generous in giving way. He will know that many of us who

  1567
  have serious misgivings about the Bill are concerned specifically about the numbers who might come here. Many of us are worried that it will be the most dependent rather than the most able who will end up here. They will come with a view to exporting their labour and capital within the European Community after 1992. Those people will have no loyalty or obligation to the country or the Crown. What is the Government's best estimate of the numbers involved? Should we accept such an obligation?
  Mr. Waddington: I must remind my hon. Friend that the object of the selection scheme is to ensure that those selected are key workers. Therefore, my hon. Friend is far from the mark when he talks about the less able being selected. The most able will be selected. By definition, those selected will be key workers in responsible jobs, on whom an economy such as that of Hong Kong depends.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Does the Home Secretary accept that the Bill must be seen in the context of the Government's immigration control during the past 10 years? What additional resources is he prepared to give to the posts in Bombay, Islamabad and Karachi where people are having to wait up to six months for an interview in order to join their spouses in this country? What additional resources will he give to process the applications for those waiting for quota vouchers in Bombay? What additional resources will he give to the immigration and nationality department at Croydon, where people have to wait up to two years to get their naturalisation certificates processed?
  Mr. Waddington: If my recollection serves me aright, the processing of applications by members of families settled here speeded up last year and more were processed than in the year before. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the settlement figures for last year, he will find that half of all those granted settlement were members of families already settled here. I should have thought that that was a perfect illustration of the generosity of our policy on immigration, in that it has given rights to the families of those who settled here earlier.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In 1981 we made a political judgment about the number of Chinese residents in Hong Kong who would be genuinely at risk after the transfer of sovereignty. Under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 we made specific provision for them. Will that provision be used again or is it to be ended now?
  Mr. Waddington: We recognised some time ago, and announced to the House, that some provision would have to be made for those in sensitive posts. The scheme we put into operation then is subsumed in this scheme. The explanatory memorandum about the scheme contains a reference to the sensitive services scheme which will cover the people whom my hon. Friend would wish to see covered.
  The Bill is designed to persuade people to remain in Hong Kong rather than go off elsewhere in the coming years to acquire another nationality as a sort of insurance policy. They might come here after 1997 if there were a collapse of confidence in Hong Kong, but in that event many more people from Hong Kong would arrive here seeking refuge. If that happened we would look to the international community for assistance, but, given our
  1568
  historical links with Hong Kong, who can doubt that in a difficult situation the United Kingdom would be expected to take the leading role? The Government believe that the Bill will greatly reduce the chance of such a collapse before 1997 and thus increase the prospects of a successful transition when the time comes.
  It would have been unreasonable to ask the House to approve an enabling Bill such as this without revealing how the Government envisaged that the resulting powers would be used. Therefore, I turn to the explanatory note, which I have laid before the House, describing the selection scheme that the Government have in mind.
  Mr. John Townend: If the purpose is to encourage people to stay in Hong Kong, why should not the use of the passports be restricted until 1997? If they can be used immediately, surely that opens the door immediately.
  Mr. Waddington: I do not see how that meets the case. If one announced that one was going to grant passports in 1997 people would go off looking for passports in other countries now, because they would never know how safe was the undertaking that in 1997 another Government would honour the bargain and issue the passports. Having heard the irresponsible nonsense spoken by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) last July, I can well understand why that fear might be present in some people's minds.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think that he misunderstood what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said. He did not say that the passports should be issued at some time in the future; he suggested, as I have suggested to my right hon. Friend, that the passports should be issued—if the Bill is enacted—in due course and in the normal way, but marked "Valid 1 January 1997". If my right hon. and learned Friend is right and if this legislation is an encouragement to people to stay in Hong Kong, they will not wish to use the passports before 1997, will they?
  Mr. Waddington: To issue passports in such an unprecedented form would be an invitation to people to think that the bargain would not be honoured if, through some terrible catastrophe, someone like the right hon. Member for Gorton was the Minister responsible at the time.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Bearing in mind the fact that the Government of the People's Republic of China will not, it appears, recognise this legislation, and hence will not recognise the passports, how will the Bill ensure that the people whom we want to remain in Hong Kong will remain there? Does not my right hon. and learned Friend believe that granting proper democracy to Hong Kong, with a full franchise for all over the age of 18 by 1997, is the way to achieve what we are seeking to achieve?
  Mr. Waddington: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made a statement about moves towards democracy, but there is no point in taking steps that will come to a dead end in 1997, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement not so long ago. That is the short answer. In the joint declaration the Chinese Government are committed to allowing people to stay in Hong Kong,

  1569
  to continuing to give them the right of abode there, to continuing to allow them to work there and to continuing to allow them to leave and return there.
  Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I do not share some of my hon. Friends' concerns about the effect of this proposal on United Kingdom immigration policy, but I want to follow up his point about the attitude of the Chinese Government to those who may take up these passports. Is not it plain from the memorandum attached to the 1984 treaty that it was clearly seen by both the British and Chinese Governments that this possibility, if enacted as legislation, would in effect deprive the people taking advantage of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals of their Chinese nationality? If that is so, how could it possibly make sense to say that we are encouraging people to stay in Hong Kong when, by enacting this legislation, we are virtually making them stateless after 1997?
  Mr. Waddington: We are certainly not making them stateless; we are giving them British citizenship—the opposite of statelessness. I must make it plain that in the United Kingdom memorandum we never undertook not to grant British citizenship to people in Hong Kong before 1997. We made it absolutely clear that people who will cease to be British dependent territories citizens in 1997 will be eligible to retain an appropriate status that will not involve a right of abode in the United Kingdom. So what we are doing is entirely in accord with the agreement reached with the Chinese in 1984.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to explain why it is proposed to extend the right to apply for citizenship beyond British dependent territory citizens to holders of Hong Kong certificates of identity and to any of the eligible categories who apply for BDT citizenship before the Bill receives Royal Assent?
  Mr. Waddington: It would be unjust if we did not because there is no difference between the qualifications of a person who is already a BDTC and a person who is entitled to become a BDTC but whose application has not yet been processed. Therefore, it would not for one moment be considered fair if one were to put the shutters down on those who by luck rather than good management have become BDTCs now and discriminate against those waiting in the queue.
  Mr. Max Madden: Before the Home Secretary moves on to the detailed arrangements under the scheme, will he address himself to three particularly vulnerable groups in Hong Kong—the non-Chinese ethnic minorities who will be stateless after 1997, the non-British spouses of British citizens who are in great difficulty and anxiety and the pitiful handful of 24 war widows whose position remains, disgracefully, most uncertain? Will he give the House clear assurances about the safeguards that will be made to protect those three small but vulnerable groups?
  Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a while, I shall deal with the second and third categories. On the first category, the hon. Gentleman will remember that steps were taken some time ago to ensure that no one would be left stateless after 1997, and at the same time an undertaking was given to the non-ethnic
  1570
  Chinese in Hong Kong that if by any chance an individual were to come under severe pressure after 1997 we would consider sympathetically his application to come here.
  Let me deal now with the explanatory note which I have laid before the House and which sets out the selection scheme that the Government have in mind. It is the product of extensive discussions with the Hong Kong Government and it is based on principles originally proposed by them.
  The scheme that we envisage would be divided into four separate sections. Seventy-two per cent., or 36,200, of the 50,000 places would be allocated under a general section, open to people from a wide range of walks of life who had a key role in maintaining Hong Kong's prosperity and successful administration. They would come from the following seven broad areas of work—business and management, accounting, engineering, information services, medicine and science, law and education. The distribution of places to the various occupational groups within those broad areas would take account of the rate at which their members were emigrating, to focus the assurances where the need is greatest.
  A number of places would be set aside for other technically or professionally qualified people who do not fit neatly into the listed occupational groups but who perform essential functions. Applicants in the general allocation section would be marked on a points system taking account of age, experience, qualifications, special circumstances, proficiency in English, British links and community service. Age is important because the scheme is intended to reflect Hong Kong's future need for personnel, and emigration is particularly high in the 30 to 40 age range.
  Points for special circumstances would be a means of, for example, recognising exceptional individual achievement or of giving extra weight to occupations suffering higher emigration rates than others within the same group. As to British links, this will include service with a British firm and the Bill does not, therefore, contain provisions for a secondment scheme as originally envisaged. How best to give assistance to British companies will no doubt feature in our detailed discussions on the Bill.
  A points system is not familiar to us in Britain, but it is well understood in Hong Kong as a result of its use by the Australian and Canadian immigration authorities, and considerable work has gone into devising one which would be as fair and objective as possible, with the governor's advisory committee playing an important and impartial role. The Independent Commission Against Corruption, which will be represented on the advisory committee, has already been involved in designing the way in which the points system will operate, and will monitor the practical application of this as of other aspects of the scheme.
  The second section of the scheme is for key entrepreneurs. The House knows that Hong Kong has a number of well-known and respected entrepreneurs who have extensive investments there, who employ substantial numbers of people and whose departure would do much to undermine confidence. We therefore envisage that the scheme would reserve a small number of places—not more than 1 per cent. of the total—for people in that category.
  The third section would provide places for Hong Kong's disciplined services—that is, the police, prison, immigration, customs, fire and auxiliary air force services, as well as the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the garrison. Places will be allocated to

  1571
  those services in proportion to their staff numbers. Applicants will be assessed on a points system, similar to that already described but adjusted to take account of the needs of each service.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Home Secretary aware that Donald Tsang, the chief administrator of Hong Kong, has estimated that 750,000 people will apply for passports—15 times as many as the number of passports available under the scheme? Will not that have a very destabilising effect on Hong Kong?
  Mr. Waddington: I have made this point already, and I do not think that it needs repeating. The fact remains that the selection of 50,000 key personnel who are essential to the good government of Hong Kong and the management of its economy will stabilise Hong Kong, keep it prosperous and thus provide an incentive for the rest of the people to stay.
  Finally, the sensitive services section will provide for people who, as a consequence of service to Hong Kong or United Kingdom interests in either a civilian or military role, would be especially vulnerable or exposed after 1997.
  This is a scheme for key workers, not for a wealthy and influential elite. It makes provision for teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, computer programmers, accountants, business managers, civil servants, policemen and the like, and reactions in Hong Kong so far lend no credence to the claim that it is considered elitist or divisive there. It is—as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) wisely said yesterday—selective, and that is its object. It is seen in Hong Kong as a scheme that will contribute to the stability and prosperity of the territory, and will therefore benefit the community as a whole.
  There are two other groups of people whom I should mention—and about whom I was questioned a few moments ago—who are not covered by the Bill but for whom I believe some provision must be made. I refer to the widows and widowers of British citizens who were resident in Hong Kong. I am prepared to offer an assurance that they will be allowed to come here if they are still resident in Hong Kong, have not the citizenship of another country and have not remarried. They would, of course, have been able to come here anyway under the immigration rules during the lifetimes of their spouses. In accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the same assurance will extend to the widows of former service men who served in defence of Hong Kong during the second world war under the Government of Hong Kong, and they will be able to come here irrespective of the husband's nationality.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the objective of the measure is to enable people to stay in Hong Kong, but if people have British passports when they come into Britain the fact is not registered. How will we know how many of those 50,000—or 225,000—actually come to reside here? How will we know how successful my right hon. and learned Friend's prediction has been?
  Mr. Waddington: The Hong Kong authorities keep a careful check on people who leave Hong Kong and are absent for more than six months. Obviously, if a person is granted British citizenship he is not liable to immigration
  1572
  control, but a check would be kept of those who left Hong Kong with British passports. I think that that meets my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Home Secretary has not touched on the context of the measure and, in particular, the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that it should be seen in an international context. What developments have taken place in his touting for support from other European countries, and especially from the United States?
  Mr. Waddington: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal with that at length in his final speech, so I shall leave it to him.
  Mr. Paul Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend has not dealt with the question about the non-United Kingdom spouses of British citizens. Unless something is done, they will be in the curious position of being treated worse than the Hong Kong spouses of Hong Kong citizens are at present. Their numbers are very small. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a word about that?
  Mr. Waddington: There is no difficulty, provided that their husbands are still alive. Wives of British citizens will have an absolute right to come here under the immigration rules. The problem arises in the case of those who are widowed, and who have therefore lost their opportunity to come here under the immigration rules.
  My right hon. Friend seems worried by my reply, so I shall let him have another go.
  Mr. Channon: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend again, but may I ask him to check the position carefully? I understand that spouses must have three years' residence here. That entirely defeats the object of the Bill, as it means that families will have to leave Hong Kong rather than being encouraged to stay.
  Mr. Waddington: With respect, my right hon. Friend is confusing two separate matters. Spouses will have an absolute right to enter the country, although three years' residence will be required after that for them to obtain British citizenship. They will not need British citizenship to have the assurance that they can come here at any time during the lifetime of their spouses. The difficulty arises only if they are widowed, and that is why I am making special provision for people in such circumstances.
  In conclusion, I should refer to suggestions that the Bill either betrays the Government's lack of confidence in the joint declaration or will reinforce uncertainty about the future among those not selected. I do not believe that either allegation stands up to scrutiny. It is a fact of life that, following the events in China last June, confidence in Hong Kong declined to a low ebb. The Bill is designed to tackle that problem; far from undermining confidence, it will bolster it.
  As for the Chinese, they have not said anything to suggest that they will fail to honour their side of the joint declaration, and under the terms of the declaration it will be incumbent upon the Chinese Government after 1997 to go on allowing Hong Kong residents with British citizenship to continue to live and work in Hong Kong, and to have free movement in and out of the territory. That is clearly set out in paragraph 3(4) of the joint declaration, and in section XIV of annex 1 thereto.

  1573
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has taken pains to explain to the Chinese our reasons for introducing the proposals, and we believe that they will in time come to accept them as a sincere contribution to Hong Kong's successful transition to Chinese sovereignty. It is also profoundly to Britain's advantage to secure such a transition. That is why the Bill serves the joint interests of the British people and of the Queen's subjects in Hong Kong. I commend it to the House.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: It is less than a year since the slaughter in Tiananmen square, so it is easy enough to understand the apprehension with which the people of Hong Kong anticipate the handing over of the colony to China in seven years' time. That apprehension is, I believe, felt by all the people—more than 5 million residents, including more than 3·25 million British dependent territories citizens.
  There cannot be a solution to the problems of the colony and the confidence of the residents that does not address the needs of all the people, not just a few. There can be no just or even practical solution in a scheme that offers a special escape route to a favoured and arbitrarily chosen minority. Selection emphasises the existence of the problem, but offers no way out of it for the majority of Hong Kong residents. The real solution—the only solution that meets the needs of all the people—is to make major progress towards democracy in the colony and to make it so complete and tightly organised that dismantling it in 1997 would be virtually impossible. That is the policy that the Labour party advocates and will pursue in government.
  Sir Peter Blaker: To how many Hong Kong Chinese would the Labour party give United Kingdom passports or the right of abode in this country?
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates a subject that I shall address in a moment. It is not our view that such matters are best decided by thinking of a number first and working out the categories afterwards.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: So the only thing that the Labour party will offer the people of Hong Kong is democracy. Has the right hon. Gentleman then not learnt anything from the experience of Tiananmen square? Democracy is not a magic wand to be waved in front of a Chinese tank. It needs to be supported by something; it must be supported by the right of those people to leave as they wish with British passports and come to Britain. Why does the Labour party hand democracy to Hong Kong with one hand and damage and wound it with the other?
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman will understand in a calmer moment that I am about to address some of the questions that he has asked me. But as he has intervened, let me make one thing absolutely clear. It seems to me that the most cynical policy of all is to pretend to offer entry to every citizen of Hong Kong on the basis and understanding that most of them will not take up that right. That sounds very noble when spoken in a single sentence, but it is not a policy that bears a moment's moral or intellectual examination.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is somewhat cynical also to pretend that a Labour Government could introduce
  1574
  greater democratisation in Hong Kong against the Basic Law which has been passed with the support of Hong Kong delegates' votes? How does he possibly argue that a Labour Government could introduce that democratisation?
  Mr. Hattersley: I propose to argue in a little detail, if given the chance, that the next Labour Government will pursue the path towards democracy at the speed that the people of Hong Kong have always asked for and that was once offered to the people of Hong Kong by the present Government. The Government have flinched from making adequate progress towards full democracy. I believe that the Bill is intended to disarm the most vocal and influential minority and therefore make it easier for the Government to follow that craven course. The Bill is the alternative to the progress towards democracy which Hong Kong needs and deserves.
  John Walden, the former director of home affairs in the Hong Kong Government, has no doubt where the root cause of falling confidence lies. Writing in today's The Times, he says:
  "within a year of Parliament's endorsement of … agreement"—
  of the joint declaration with China in December 1984—
  "Foreign Office officials had secretly agreed to China's demand that Britain slow down its plans for democratic reform."
  He continued:
  "The collapse of confidence in the future of Hong Kong was precipitated not by the tragic events in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 but by Britain's failure to stand up to China in November 1985 and to secure the political safeguards written into the Joint Declaration."
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I should like to make some progress first. I promise to bear him in mind.
  Mr. Whitney: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Hattersley: It has been claimed that the Bill discharges a debt of honour that we owe to the people of Hong Kong. However, no one explains how a debt of honour to 5 million people, 3·25 million of them British dependent territories citizens, can be repaid by selectiing 50,000 of their number for special treatment. It has been claimed, in contradiction of opinion within Hong Kong, which I shall presently quote, that the Bill will increase confidence in the colony. However, no one explains what effect the Bill will have on the confidence of the overwhelming majority of residents who will not benefit from its provisions. The Bill legitimises the fear that an escape route is needed after 1997, but it offers the chance to escape to less than one resident in 20. There is not and cannot be such an escape route for the majority of the colony's residents. If general confidence is increased by the measure, it will be the first time that the morale of the other ranks has been improved by the announcement that the officers will retreat first.
  Mr. Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman quoted with approval the article by John Walden in The Times today. Is he aware that Mr. Walden suggested that China's opposition is the best reason why the Government's Bill should be supported today? Does he therefore accept Mr. Walden's proposition?
  Mr. Hattersley: I certainly accept Mr. Walden's proposition that the Bill is the best that we could get from the Government. Mr. Walden is saying that a very small amount of help is better than no help at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me whether he accepts Mr. Walden's package in total or whether he accepts only part of it. As he had a hand in these matters some years ago, I suspect that he knows very well the betrayal of Hong Kong by the British Foreign Office.
  Mr. Whitney: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I take Mr. Walden's proposition seriously and I take the issue seriously, which the right hon. Gentleman is failing to do. Certainly it is right that we should stand up to Peking, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary suggested. The way to stand up to Peking and to make the Chinese Government understand their own interests is to pass and support the Bill. The way not to do that is to opt out and cop out of the issue in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and apparently the majority of the Labour party intend to do.
  Mr. Hattersley: I return to opinion in Hong Kong on the subject of the Government's plans. Mr. Lee Cheuk Yan of the Pro Democracy movement said that the Bill is
  "only for 50,000 households…so for the majority of Hong Kong people is irrelevant."
  That view, according to opinion polls, is shared by a vast majority of Hong Kong residents, as 90 per cent. of executives, professionals and entrepreneurs, the people whom the Bill is supposed to benefit, say that the Bill will not promote stability, and 88 per cent. of young Hong Kong residents—the future of the colony—regard it as of no significance. Most people in Hong Kong believe in a united territory which will move towards the genuine democracy and the Bill of Rights that will give reality to the concept of "two systems within one nation" after 1997.
  The Government have chosen the diametrically opposite course. They have divided the colony between the favoured minority and the disregarded majority. No doubt they believe that by promising passports to Hong Kong's most vocal and influential residents, that has muted their opposition to the Government's failure to make proper progress towards the full democracy that Hong Kong needs and wants. The Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils was unanimous in calling for, a year ago, 20 elected members by 1991, 30 in 1995 and a fully elected Assembly in 2003.
  Despite his predecessor's fine talk about the pace of democratic development reflecting the wishes of the whole community, the Foreign Secretary no longer even aspires to those figures and that result. Instead, he bends to the wishes of the Peking Government, and only half the Assembly's members will be elected by 2003. I want to ask him a direct question on this subject. Did the Prime Minister make any promises about Hong Kong when she dined, secretly as she thought, with the Chinese ambassador two weeks ago? Within 10 months of the Tiananmen square massacre, the Prime Minister was accepting Chinese hospitality. What hopes we had of the Prime Minister and the Government standing up for democracy in Hong Kong were extinguished when we discovered how she had spent her evening three weeks ago, allegedly in secret.
  The Foreign Secretary's wish to accommodate China, which must be putting at risk the promised Hong Kong Bill of Rights, is a denial of the principle that his
  1576
  predecessor so often asserted—Britain's determination that it would not abdicate its right to govern Hong Kong in Hong Kong's interests before 1997. The Foreign Office and the Bill are now dividing Hong Kong to facilitate Chinese rule. The first step that Labour will take will be to increase confidence within the colony by moving towards real democracy at the pace demanded by the people of Hong Kong.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Speaking on radio not many days ago, the right hon. Gentleman said, presumably while trying to play to the anti-immigration lobby in Birmingham, that the Labour party, if given the opportunity, would limit the number of people allowed into this country. He further said that he did not know how or how many. Has he had time to think since and does he now know how and how many?
  Mr. Hattersley: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman about something that even he, on reflection, will understand. Whatever else is represented by the Member of Parliament for Sparkbrook, it is not the anti-immigration lobby.
  We do not intend now, or ever, to play the numbers game. There are a number of people in express and specific categories who in our view deserve the right to enter Britain. In a moment, I shall describe those categories, but we leave the numbers game to those who used to be led by the Home Secretary until he was coerced into supporting the Bill.
  I shall describe in a moment how we shall deal with immigration from the colony, but first I want to make it clear that under no circumstances will we introduce a system that requires residents, in theory equal before the law, to compete with each other for a limited number of passports. The system that the Government propose is arbitrary and divisive. Its effect will be capricious and its result will be unavoidably unjust.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment.
  The Bill proposes that 50,000 individuals should be granted British citizenship. Why 50,000? Why not 40,000, 60,000 or 70,000, as the Foreign Secretary originally proposed? We know the honest answer to the question: 50,000 is the compromise between what the Foreign Secretary wanted and what the Home Secretary was prepared to agree. But, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will answer the question precisely when he replies to the debate, what is the official explanation of 50,000? What is to be said to the men and women who just fail to qualify and who know that they are on the margin of qualification because they have compared their ratings in the absurd points scheme that the Government propose and have realised that they just missed out compared with more successful applicants? Why will they be told that only 50,000 will be allowed?
  Mrs. Currie rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who vote for the Bill—
  Mrs. Currie rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: The rule is that when I say that I shall not give way, the hon. Lady must sit down.

  1577
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who will vote for the Bill tonight have studied the points scheme, by which British passports will be distributed. British citizenship is to be awarded on the basis of a calculation that most urban district councils would regard as too crude for the allocation of council houses. I invite hon. Members who doubt that judgment to read paragraph 23 of the proposed scheme:
  "In the event that a number of candidates scored equal points and all could not be accommodated within the places available for each group, the Governor would have discretion to choose whom to recommend for citizenship."
  An urban district council that gave such power to a housing manager would be driven out of office. The Home Secretary understated the case when he told us that this is an unprecedented way of awarding British citizenship.
  The House is being invited to take or leave the points scheme. It is being denied any opportunity to amend it. It is not part of the Bill, but as it clearly will not be changed year by year there is no reason why it should be hidden away in secondary legislation, except the Government's hope that debate on the contents of the points scheme can be hidden away in a 90-minute debate late one night. Given the scheme's contents, that is hardly surprising.
  I give another example of the scheme's absurdity, to which I hope the Foreign Secretary will give an explicit answer tonight. Paragraph 34 of the scheme suddenly begins to refer to heads of households, 50,000 of whom will be granted British citizenship. How is a head of household defined? Is it a man? Is it the highest wage earner? If a woman earns less than her husband but qualifies in the scheme through education and experience, can she still he granted British citizenship?
  What about children? Paragraph 34 says that children under 18 will not be allowed to accompany their parents if the Home Secretary is not satisfied as to their good character. Are the Government serious about that? Are they saying that when all the paraphernalia have been gone through, when the committee has sat, when the governor has recommended and when the Home Secretary has rubber-stamped the decision, somebody will say "You and your spouse can come, but your children under 18 are not, in the Home Secretary's judgment, of good character." Is this a serious scheme, or was it simply cobbled together overnight?
  If the scheme were simply ludicrous, the tragedy would not be so great, but it is also arbitrary and contradictory in a way that should disqualify it from serious consideration. In The Times today, Mr. D. A. White of Hong Kong described one of its consequences, to which I hope the Home Secretary will listen. May I have the Home Secretary's attention?
  Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify for the House whether this is a debate or a statement from the right hon. Gentleman? Is it not time that he gave way to a Conservative Member?
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Is it on the same point?
  Mr. Bell: I am seeking your protection as a Back Bencher. We are trying to listen to the debate, but Conservative Members are consistently intervening without any sanction from the Chair. I do not wish to
  1578
  challenge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we require the protection of the Chair against those who are deliberately disrupting the proceedings of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) have been generous in giving way, but I remind the House that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. Interventions inevitably prolong speeches.
  Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the Home Secretary will concentrate on the example that I propose to give him in a moment as it reveals that he was wrong in fact in an answer that he gave earlier. Mr. D. A. White of Hong Kong wrote to The Times this morning describing the contrary consequences of the Bill. Mr. White is British; his wife is Hong Kong-born Chinese. As a result of the iniquities of our general immigration law, Mr. White does not have an unqualified and unfettered right to bring his wife to this country. The Home Secretary said that he did. In fact, Mr. White has the right to apply to bring his wife here, but she has to pass a number of tests, such as the primary purpose rule, to come to this country. Mr. White points out that if he were not British, but a British dependent territories citizen, he would certainly qualify for the points scheme and would thereby acquire the unfettered and unqualified right to bring his wife to this country. He says that he is penalised by the fact that he is British. He says finally that if he died before his wife, she would lose even the residual right to apply and to be examined. That does not seem right and I hope that the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary will justify such an anomaly.
  Anyone who has residual doubts about the Government's fear that the points scheme is literally indefensible needs to read no further than clause 1(5). It says:
  "Neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
  British citizenship is to be handed out according to a points scheme, which turns out, on examination, to be run not by the governor, but by a group of Hong Kong officials who may well themselves be applicants. The points scheme would be ridiculous were it not wicked. However, the comparison, which I made a few moments ago, with local authority housing allocation may have been unfair. No housing points scheme could be so subjective or crude. No housing committee would deny an aggrieved applicant the right of appeal. No local authority would be allowed to avoid judicial review of its housing allocation, yet all those iniquities and absurdities are built into the scheme by which the right to be British is granted by a committee of Hong Kong officials and then rubber-stamped by the Foreign Secretary and the governor of Hong Kong.
  Mrs. Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: The injustices inherent in the scheme were unavoidable once the Government decided on the principle—if "principle" is the right word—on which the Bill is based. The Government decided on a number and then had to decide how the total was made up. If the Government were determined to have a selective scheme, they should have begun by deciding which categories of

  1579
  residents they were prepared to allow to come to Britain and the number of entrants would then have been the total within those prospective categories.
  Mr. James Couchman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: We know that the Government chose the figure of 50,000 men and women of special merit and—
  Mrs. Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Couchman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Currie: It is noticeable in the House that the right hon. Gentleman is ploughing through his notes with his head down. I am glad—and grateful to him—that he has at last raised his head to answer a question. Is it not a matter of logic from what he is saying that everybody in Hong Kong who wants to come in should have a passport and be able to do so? As that is not acceptable and is unlikely to happen, he is saying that nobody should come. Would it not be better to put his points into a reasoned amendment and to support the Second Reading tonight?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry that the hon. Lady missed the television at 5.10 pm—[Interruption.] Of course, that is why I waited before giving way. What is right is that those with special needs should be allowed into the country. If she can bear to listen with patience, as the cameras are off, I am about to describe what those categories are and how we should assess them.
  The net result of the strange compromise between the Foreign Secretary's pro-consular illusions and the Home Secretary's tabloid populism provides for people coming into this country who do not remotely conform to the criteria that the Government once laid down in the British Nationality Act 1981, such as the criteria of established relationship with this country or a determination to become permanently associated with it. More importantly, this strange, cobbled-together compromise will deny citizenship to men and women who need, deserve and want it. Such iniquities and inequities can be avoided only by the application to Hong Kong of this country's general policy on nationality and immigration—not the policy we have now, which is often unjust and discriminatory, but the immigration policy which we should have and which, under the Labour Government, we will have. Under that policy, there would be no general distribution of passports by Home Secretaries on the basis of schemes cobbled together from dubious principles and divisive practices.
  When Lord Whitelaw introduced the British Nationality Bill, the Tory party used to believe that the award of British citizenship should be based on constant principles: birth in Britain, a long period of residence in Britain or a close personal association with Britain. British citizenship should be given away by the Government according to principles, not according to the mood of the moment. That remains our view. We should apply to Hong Kong the compassionate and consistent principles of our published immigration policy. For many of the citizens who thus came to this country, British citizenship might well follow.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I will give way just once more, then I shall obey Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction to make progress.
  Mr. Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly a well-known international statesman, but he may not be as well known as his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The right hon. Member for Gorton said that any right of abode given by this Parliament under the Bill, or under any other, would not necessarily be maintained by an incoming Labour Government. Will the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) repudiate that particular statement?
  Mr. Hattersley: Our position on that is clear. If the Bill is passed, we shall, of course, accept its provisions, but, as I have already pointed out to the House, the Bill is so constructed that the scheme that it governs can be changed from time to time. Clearly, the Government would not abandon the right to change the scheme in the Bill and neither would we. If the Bill is passed, we shall respect it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has never said anything remotely different from that.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What are your principles?
  Mr. Hattersley: I hear the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) say, with the wit and intelligence that I expect from him, "What are your policies?" Under our policy, some Hong Kong residents would qualify immediately for entry into this country. Many of them were recommended for special consideration by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Their problems have often been ignored by the Government. Indeed, all four special categories recommended by the Select Committee were ignored by the Government until 4·5 pm today. I am sure that the so-called rebels on the Tory Benches will feel that if they have achieved nothing else in their endeavours, they have got the widows of ex-service men into this country. They have achieved that at least because the Government ran away from them on that particular and progress would not have been made unless the Government had feared defeat this evening.
  The Government have not gone far enough. We will offer immediate entry to other groups because they deserve and need it. The Select Committee referred to "non-ethnic Chinese" who are mostly east African Asians who took refuge in the colony 20 years ago and who do not have full rights of residence in Hong Kong. In 1997, they will be stateless. Despite what the Home Secretary said this afternoon, the Government are offering them nothing. They do not qualify under the points scheme. We will grant them entry rights and I repeat that it is our published and established policy to allow the small number of war widows to come to this country. If I welcome nothing else that the Home Secretary said this afternoon, I welcome his concession on those widows and rejoice at his conversion.
  We should also—as the Select Committee proposes—accept that time spent as a bona fide student could be included in the qualifying period for naturalisation. As the Select Committee also recommended, we should use section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 generously.

  1581
  That section allows the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to public servants who have worked abroad in colonial administrations. It enables the Government to offer citizenship to public servants of every rank, whereas the points scheme would clearly favour more senior officials. [Interruption.] How do I know? Who asked me how I knew? [HON. MEMBERS: "Langbaurgh."] I should have guessed.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way in a moment.
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) if he will tell me the five basic principles of the points scheme that I have cited. Can he do that? [Laughter.]
  Mr. Holt: The right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "One."] The right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "One."]—and those behind him may think that this debate is funny and that the lives of people in Hong Kong are not important. This is not a game; it is a debate about people's lives and futures and the right hon. Gentleman is not doing Parliament or his party any good by his behaviour this afternoon. I suggest that he is honest with the public and that he stands up and tells the House how many people from Hong Kong the Labour party would allow into Britain.
  Mr. Hattersley: It is because I regard this matter as crucial that I reject and resent the fact that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh will vote for the Bill this evening without understanding the first thing about what is involved.
  Some public servants will no doubt wish—perhaps even need—to leave the colony after 1997. We shall certainly enable them to come to Britain. The Home Secretary's discretion—a major feature of both immigration and nationality legislation at present—can and will be used to assist other individuals—I emphasise individuals—who are in particular need of leaving the colony.
  On 17 January the Foreign Secretary told the House that as we considered the Bill we should be mindful of our duty to the people of Britain as well as to the people of Hong Kong. It is to the consequences of the Bill for Britain that I shall now address my remarks. It now seems to be the Home Secretary's belief—it has always been the Foreign Secretary's belief—that most of the Hong Kong residents who receive British citizenship will choose not to come to Britain. The announcement by the Government of China that they will not recognise a second or dual nationality seems to me to undermine that conviction. My own view is that most of the 225,000 will not come immediately but will come eventually—in 1996 if they have not emigrated elsewhere. But I repeat that the number is not the issue. What concerns me—it is the nub of my passionate opposition to the Bill—is the damage that will be done to the interests and welfare of the black and Asian British. That damage will be real, practical and immediate.
  This is an immigration Bill as well as a nationality Bill. It confers the right of entry into Britain on men and
  1582
  women who do not possess it at present. New rights to new immigration—the extension of immigration—must be seen, at least during the lifetime of this Parliament, against the background of the Government's established immigration policy. About the principles of that policy—if "principles" is the right word—Ministers have been brutally frank. The rigorous control of numbers is said to be essential. The then Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—was explicit in his words to the House on 16 November 1987. These are his words, not mine; they are his opinions, certainly not mine:
  "there is a limit to the extent to which a society can accept"—
  Mr. Couchman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In July the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said in the House that the Labour party recognised that 3¼ million Chinese could not be given the right of abode. On 20 December he said that 50,000 heads of households could not. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order.
  Mr. Hattersley: The then Home Secretary said on 16 November 1987:
  "there is a limit to the extent to which a society can accept large numbers of people from different cultures without unacceptable social tensions. That remains our view. It is not an anti-immigrant view; it is a realistic view.
  It would not be in the interests of the ethnic minorities themselves if there were a prospect of further mass inward movement. That prospect would increase social tensions, particularly in our cities."—[Official Report, 16 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 779.]
  I repeat that that is the Government's view—the established principle of their immigration policy. Successive regulations have put it into practice. They have had the effect of reducing numbers and Ministers have boasted about it. What is more, adminstrative delays hold back the entry of men and women who are entitled to come here. The Government consistently refuse to allocate sufficient resources to reduce the queue. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asked questions in the House during the week before the Easter recess. The answers that he obtained about the length of time that it takes, not to obtain the right to come here, but to demonstrate that right, was terrifying.
  I have no doubt that if today we gave special priority immigration status to hand-picked residents of Hong Kong, the Government would hold back the entry into Great Britain of men and women with a far greater claim to British nationality. They would contrive more administrative delays and introduce new regulations. They would apply the primary purpose rule more rigorously. I remind the House that that is the rule that gives an immigration officer the power to read a husband's mind and announce that he cannot come to Britain because he is applying not because he wants to be with his wife but because he likes it here or wants a job here. The Home Secretary tells us that this is a Bill aimed at carefully chosen people with good jobs and good salaries. I know very well that he will compensate for that by keeping out

  1583
  people without good jobs and without salaries—husbands and wives who ought to be reunited with their families in Britain.
  Men and women with an established right to come here will be passed over in favour of men and women for whom a new and absolute right is being created. Some of the most underprivileged families in Britain will be penalised while help is given to other individuals who, by definition, continue to enjoy a very great advantage.
  I remind the House of the people to whom we currently refuse entry to Great Britain. Husbands of British citizens are prevented from joining their wives in this country on the most flimsy and artificial of pretexts. Dependent relatives are deprived of the right to spend their old age with their families. Many special voucher holders—east African refugees who were promised the right to come to Britain 20 years ago—have still not received visas. Perhaps worst of all, children of British citizens were denied entry because they were adjudged, in the notorious phrase, not to be related as claimed. Now DNA tests have proved that the Home Office was wrong—that they are the children of British citizens—but they are still being denied reunion with their families. Every week, I see families who are deperately damaged, materially and emotionally, by those exclusions—families who are separated when they should be together. While such exclusions continue, I do not propose to vote for the priority entry into Britain of men and women who qualify by a committee's judgment of such intangible attributes as
  "special circumstances; experience and community service".
  Mr. Waddington: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has fully developed his argument, we can understand it. He has said, first, that he is worried about the possibility of 50,000 people coming here from Hong Kong because of the effect that it may have on community relations—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. It was you."] No, that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would allow some people to come here from Hong Kong. How, in the light of that, can he again refuse to answer the straight question that has been put to him now half a dozen times? If he thinks that 50,000 people coming here would be bad for race relations, but believes that some peple should be allowed to come here from Hong Kong, how many people does he believe should come here from Hong Kong?
  Mr. Hattersley: I had no doubt that the Home Secretary would eventually ask me the numbers question because that enables him to support the Bill and still preserve his racist credentials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In the meantime—
  Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talk about the racist credentials of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. That is surely unparliamentary and it was a disgraceful thing to say.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman used a phrase that was unparliamentary I am sure that he would wish to rephrase it.
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had I used a phrase that was unparliamentary, I should, as
  1584
  always, withdraw it without a moment's hesitation. However, the idea that the phrase "racist credentials", which I debase by saying that it is used in every debate on race that we have in this place, is in any way unparliamentary is, to put it simply, stretching it a bit.
  I want to ask the Home Secretary a question about his policies.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there precedent for the proposition that the word "racist" is unparliamentary?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will leave those matters to the Chair. There are remarks which some hon. Members find offensive. I did not feel it necessary to ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that particular phrase, but I must tell the House that this is a very serious debate. There are strong emotions on both sides and these interventions prolong speeches.
  Mr. Hattersley: The iniquity of what the Government propose for Hong Kong becomes clear when it is compared with the treatment now meted out to British ethnic minorities. For example, we are told—indeed it is the nub and basis of the Bill—that it is right that 50,000 selected Hong Kong residents should be allowed to enter Britain and bring their families with them. That is right because of their uncertainty about the colony's future.
  If a Sikh woman from my constituency—Sikh and British—marries a man from the Punjab, that man will be subject to a searching examination of his motives and intentions if he applies to come to this country. If he says that he wants to come to Britain in part because he is uncertain about the future of the Punjab, he will be automatically denied entry to this country according to the primary purpose rule.
  Anxiety about the future is a qualification for coming here if one lives in Hong Kong. If one is a husband wishing to join a British wife, anxiety about the future of one's country of origin anywhere else is an automatic disqualification.
  I am familiar with the cliche that two wrongs do not make a right. Like most cliches, it is true. However, that cliche does not apply to this situation. Applying the principles of the Bill would do more than leave the black and Asian British in their present state of disadvantage. It would increase their suffering by pushing them further down the queue. Their relatives would be kept out as the new entrants were allowed in.
  I have read that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has also expressed the view that Asian British living in his constituency would feel a bitter resentment if their husbands, parents, wives and children were kept out of this country while new candidates with no immediate claim on British citizenship were allowed in. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right. However, our attitudes towards the problem diverge from that.
  For 10 years I have been arguing that husbands, wives and dependent relatives should be allowed into this country. For 10 years the right hon. Member for Chingford has been voting to keep them out. That shows a substantial difference in our attitudes towards the problem. I say to him and to others, whether he votes for the Bill tonight is no concern of mine. I shall vote against it because it is a bad Bill—bad in concept, execution, principle and practice.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight—[Interruption.] Although in the past I have expressed doubts about some aspects of the Bill, I believe that it is the only course now open to the Government. What doubts I had were removed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
  I have seldom heard a less convincing speech than that made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We respect him because he normally puts forward an honest and convincing point of view from the Opposition Front Bench. However, to say tonight that the problem facing the Government can be solved by an extension of democracy in Hong Kong bears no relation to reality.
  In the 1980s, I was one of those who strongly urged the Government to speed up the process of democratisation. I wanted that first stage to have been taken by 1989. However, we were unsuccessful in convincing the Government of that. I do not see now that the situaton in Hong Kong following Tiananmen square can be dealt with by saying that we will extend democratisation.
  There is a lack of confidence in some quarters in Hong Kong. It does not exist in all quarters, and it may be exaggerated, but the uncertainty undoubtedly exists. The Government's obligation is to do their utmost to ensure that Hong Kong retains its stability and prosperity until the time comes to hand it over in 1997.
  I differ from those who say that we have a moral responsibility to Hong Kong. I have always found it very difficult to understand how international affairs can be run satisfactorily on the basis of a particular chosen morality. The British have made a considerable contribution to the development of Hong Kong and to the welfare of its people. However, if we look at the figures we must also recognise that the Americans and the Japanese have made an even greater contribution in investment and trade. Very well—we do not criticise that, nor do we dispute it. All have contributed. Because we have helped to build up Hong Kong and its people, I cannot see that one can draw from that a moral conclusion as to what we should do now.
  Our responsibility is clearly a political and practical one. We must ensure that, when Hong Kong is handed over to the People's Republic of China, it is as stable and prosperous as we can make it. The Goverment have quite rightly addressed themselves to the problem of securing that position. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook failed to address that problem; that was the great weakness of his speech.
  I readily agree that there may be difficulties with the present immigration law and that there are anomalies which should be changed. I do not dispute that.
  Mr. Hattersley: You were the Prime Minister responsible.
  Mr. Heath: Yes, I know. With time, one learns things. All that was 20 years ago. If anomalies have emerged, they can be changed. Nobody is arguing about that.
  I see nothing in the Bill that will suggest that those who are waiting for relatives to join them will be affected. I am strongly in favour of those who have an entitlement to come here being granted that entitlement as soon as possible. I have always been in favour of that. Therefore,
  1586
  I do not see any problems arising from the Bill on that aspect of immigrants or the relatives of those who have already settled here coming to this country.
  The problem is how to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong until 1997. The Government's approach has been to try to ascertain how many and who among those who are essential to public services and local services and to management should come here. They have then said, "Very well, we shall arrange for that to happen." I have always been worried about discrimination, but we have to solve the problem of maintaining stability and prosperity, and I believe that this is the only path open to us. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not suggest any other.
  We have heard that we do not want any discrimination in favour of the wealthy in Hong Kong. In my experience, the wealthy have already made their plans. They have already got out of Hong Kong. They are in Vancouver, building rather disagreeable high buildings in place of the natural type of architecture. They are looking after themselves. We do not have to worry about them and nor do the Government.
  Others will seek a passport elsewhere. That is only to be expected until confidence is restored. It will require a period of residence overseas. However, we are also learning that those who have already followed that path and got their external residence are now returning to Hong Kong. If, by 1997, we have solved the bigger problem, to which I shall refer in a moment, those people will continue to remain and to work in Hong Kong because that is where they want to be. They are making the necessary dispositions themselves.
  The larger problem relates to the attitude of the People's Republic of China. We are faced with the major task of restoring the relationship between Peking and Westminster and Whitehall and of both sides gaining confidence in each other. There is nothing to be gained from constantly dwelling on the tragedy of Tiananmen square, as did the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] First, because we want to get the Chinese back on the path that they were on before that tragedy. They were being supported by investment and technology from all over the world. They are still being supported by a large amount of investment and technology from all the European countries. Our business men who are already there are continuing as before. What is required is confidence about the future at the political level.
  Mr. David Winnick: So we just forget about it, do we?
  Mr. Heath: There is nothing to be gained by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who always has a grudge against something or some country, continually muttering under his breath about the tragedy, which we all deplore.
  We must build up that confidence, because it will then give confidence to Hong Kong about what will happen after 1997. Therefore, I urge the Government not to despair and not to be dogmatic about this. I urge them not to regard it as an incident that will mean that for years and years we shall be further apart from Peking, but to find a way of moving closer to it so that they can influence it.
  Mr. Adley rose—
  Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
  The democratic problems are not easy to solve. That was the problem in Tiananmen square. With a population of 1,050 million, it is not easy to say what democracy will be, how the people will vote or who will represent them—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Front Bench spokesmen should take up positions at a university and explain the form of democracy to be brought about in a people of that size whose education has been developed to a high degree only in the past 10 years.
  To restore confidence to Hong Kong, we must establish a relationship between London and Peking. That requires action from both sides—from Peking as well as London—if we are to give confidence to the people.
  It is said that, if 50,000 families eventually come here, it will be the cause of great disorganisation. Having gone through the experience of the Ugandan Asians, I doubt that. I have heard it said that the Ugandan Asians tore the country apart. They did nothing of the sort. I have been looking up the records; they show that, like the rest of the world, this country felt that the British were doing the right thing in a difficult situation—as we did. We took 29,500 people from Uganda in the course of six weeks—not over a period of seven years. Those who came have been extraordinarily successful in this country, and have contributed an immense amount to it.
  One thing on which I have formed a judgment about the Chinese is that, given an opportunity, wherever they are in the world, they will always be successful. It does not matter whether it is in the east end of London or in San Francisco—wherever there is a Chinatown, it is successful. Those who eventually come here will be successful and, I believe, will contribute to the welfare of this country.
  I must emphasise that Chinese Governments have kept their undertakings in the past and, I believe, will keep to the undertakings that they have given about Hong Kong. It is said that they did not keep an undertaking about Tibet. However, the fact is that the agreement that was signed between Mao Tse-Tung and the Dalai Lama was broken by the military in Tibet, not by Mao or by the Dalai Lama. Therefore, that is not an example of the Chinese breaking an undertaking that they have signed. I think that they will keep their undertakings.
  The Government are doing what is essential at this moment. They should be supported in that. However, they should back up their policy by re-establishing a relationship with Peking that will enable confidence about the future to exist in Hong Kong. If that can be achieved by 1997, some of the fears among my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members will prove to be groundless. I very much hope that that will be the case.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whose speech got to the heart of the Bill and of the bankruptcy of the Labour party's position.
  I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in one area. He said that the events of Tiananmen square are not relevant. I believe that he is wrong there. He is right to say that it is necessary to Hong Kong's future that we establish proper, stable relations with the Chinese Government, but he is wrong to ignore the Tiananmen event, because it is the shadow that hangs over Hong Kong at the moment, and the cause of its instability. It is not irrelevant to record
  1588
  that we are now within six weeks of the first anniversary of that appalling event, in which the Chinese state slaughtered its own young citizens in the main square of its own capital city. Today we are debating and deciding what safeguards and protections we should give our citizens whom we are about to hand over to that same state in a handful of years.
  The House need be in no doubt about my party's position on this matter. We have stuck to it through thick and thin and we shall not vary from it now. I must advise the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we believe that Britain has a moral duty to honour the rights of all our passport holders in Hong Kong. That is not only the morally right thing to do; it is also the best practical thing to do. It provides the best way of ensuring Hong Kong's stability until 1997, and of preserving and protecting its democracy and prosperity after 1997. We believe that, if Britain had shown leadership and imagination, it would have been possible. It may still be possible to secure the international guarantees and agreements that would have reinsured our responsibilities to our passport holders with friendly countries in Europe, the Commonwealth and north America.
  I wish to stress two points. First, as the Home Secretary properly said, we need to understand that the Bill is not an emigration policy for Hong Kong. It is a policy to discourage emigration from Hong Kong. It is about taking the measures that will give the people of Hong Kong the confidence to stay where they want to stay—in a free and capitalist Hong Kong. Secondly, we need to understand that Hong Kong is different from any matter on which the House has previously legislated. The House has legislated many times to transfer sovereignty over lands and people to self-government. But we have never handed a people over, most of them against their will, to another state, let alone a state from which many of them fled in fear of their lives.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup sought to argue that to allow the freedom of our citizens to be bartered away over their heads carried no moral obligation. I believe that it does carry obligations, and that it would be better if we faced up to them.
  There was a time when Britain would have recognised those obligations and acted on them. In so doing, we should have won the respect of the whole world and furthered our interests in Hong Kong and the far east. But, since the Tiananmen square massacre, the activities of Ministers have fallen far short of that great tradition. They have ducked and weaved, moved forwards and backwards, hinted and warned, but they have never provided the leadership on this issue that was necessary even to make their own party recognise the gravity of the position.
  Even now, the arguments that Ministers advance for not doing more for Hong Kong are the most disreputable that any Government could hide behind. When I hear Ministers say, "We should awfully like to do more for the people of Hong Kong but Parliament will not allow us to," I hear the clear echo of doublespeak. As if this Government had ever listened to the voice of Parliament. That is not leadership but the abdication of leadership.
  Mr. Barry Field rose—
  Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that the House will understand that I have several points to make in my speech. I have no wish to

  1589
  detain the House longer than is necessary. I listened to the wise words of Mr. Speaker. I wish to allow other hon. Members the chance to speak. I shall give way to two interventions, one from the hon. Gentleman and the next intervention that I receive.
  Mr. Field: I am genuinely obliged to the right hon. Member for giving way. He was talking about doublespeak. Can he tell the House why, in a campaign for a parliamentary election, the Liberal party tried to besmirch my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) when he stood as candidate for the Isle of Wight by suggesting that he had a black girl friend and was living with a black woman? Where was the doublespeak on that issue?
  Mr. Ashdown: That was such an awful intervention that I shall give way to two more.
  What arguments are advanced by those who would not uphold honouring the full rights of all passport holders in Hong Kong? First, they say that Britain could not possibly grant right of abode to 3 million people. Let me remind the House that in 1987, when we passed the Single European Act, we granted right of abode in Britain to 250 million people. Where is the high moral principle that makes it acceptable to grant right of abode to 250 million people who live only a handful of miles from these shores, when we are told that it is unacceptable and dangerous to grant it to the tiniest fraction of that number who live 8,000 miles away but happen mostly to be Chinese? Is the House prepared to go along with so blatantly disreputable an argument?
  The second charge against our ideas lies in the assumption that all those who were given right of abode would board their international jets and come to Britain the day after tomorrow. That is arrogant nonsense. Who would wish to leave Hong Kong, which has a higher growth rate, lower unemployment and an immeasurably better ordered society? Do we believe that people in Hong Kong will dash to Britain to enjoy the poll tax, record mortgage rates, a failing economy and social disorder? What a ridiculous notion. [HON. MEMBERS: "To enjoy freedom."]
  If what the governor of Hong Kong has called Armageddon were to happen after 1997, a mass exodus would indeed take place. But in those circumstances, the Foreign Secretary has rightly accepted that Britain would have the first responsibility for the welfare of those who would in his words be "refugees". I note that he is nodding.
  The difference between the Government's proposals and ours is that the Government would choose to offer sanctuary to penniless refugees on a scale that would dwarf anything that we have seen with the Vietnamese boat people. But we would have them come as free citizens who have, by way of insurance, made preparations by investing in property, jobs and firms in Britain beforehand. That is the difference.
  Mr. Adley: I do not want to drag the right hon. Gentleman into the numbers game, but most people who moved to Hong Kong in the past 50, 40 or 30 years were well aware that the lease on the territory ran out in 1997. No one asked them to go to Hong Kong, and no one is asking them to leave. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, even though Britain's lease on 97 per cent. of
  1590
  the territory finishes in 1997, we have an obligation in perpetuity? Does he envisage a date 10, 20 or 30 years after 1997 when our obligation would end?
  Mr. Ashdown: The purpose of the policy is to ensure stability before 1997 and the survival of democracy afterwards. That means that we have an obligation to those who have British passports when the territory is handed over. It is as simple and easy as that.
  Mr. Adley: It is not simple.
  Mr. Ashdown: Why not, for those who have British passports? I remind the hon. Gentleman that, three years ago, he voted in the House—I do not know how he voted, but the House voted by an overwhelming majority—to give, not 3 million, but 250 million people right of abode. Did he ask then whether it was in perpetuity?
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: I was looking forward to an intervention from an Opposition Member, but I said that I would give way to two more interventions.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: The right hon. Gentleman knows his constituency well. Does he believe that Yeovil could absorb 5,000 or 10,000 immigrants from Hong Kong during the next decade?
  Mr. Ashdown: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he did not ask that question when he granted right of abode in Britain to 250 million people. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall give an answer. If, in extremis, the people who are being crushed under the Chinese tanks in Nathan road in 1997 are British passport holders and my responsibility, and if someone asked me or my constituents to give them sanctuary, the unequivocal answer to that I, and probably my constituents, would give would be, "Yes, of course." [Interruption.] May I move on? [HON. MEMBERS: "Move on."]
  Even in the circumstances described or alluded to in the hon. Gentleman's question, could Britain accept its obligations? Contrary to all the scaremongering, the evidence is that we could accept those responsibilities. The Corry report, supported by expert research from elsewhere and the writings of economists such as Samuel Brittan, concluded that, with proper preparation, Britain could actually benefit from such immigration, just as we have done in the past.
  I stress that that is less likely to happen if we take the right steps today, and more likely if we take the wrong ones. The broader the right of abode we grant today, the stronger freedom will be after 1997 and the less likely the chance of Armageddon. The narrower the right of abode we grant today, the weaker freedom will be after 1997 and the more likely the chance of Armageddon after 1997 and the fear that the Government say they have at the top of their mind.
  It is only late in the day that the Government have accepted the force of the argument from these Benches, and almost unanimously from Hong Kong, that it is the assurance of passports that will enable people to stay. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary, who has understood the force of that position and won a limited victory within the Cabinet. It is greatly to his credit that he pressed on with that.

  1591
  Let me examine the logic of the Government's argument. They rightly say that giving 50,000 households the right of abode will persuade Hong Kongers to stay in Hong Kong. If that logic applies to the few, why does it not also apply to the many? If the 50,000 who get passports will stay, is that not more likely to be the case for the 315,000 households recommended by the Price Waterhouse study as the minimum required to ensure stability? If the argument applies to some British passport holders, why not to all who hold British passports?
  The Bill shows that the Government know perfectly clearly what should be done, but do not have the courage of their convictions. The result is that the Bill is inadequate and apologetic. Against the scale of Britain's responsibilities, it looks puny and insufficient. It is concerned more with the troubled internal politics of the Conservative party than with our external obligations.
  I warn the Government that there is a genuine risk that what they have done may turn out to be too little, too late. By pitching the numbers so low, they may well create the worst of all possible worlds by doing insufficient to secure stability, while creating a conduit for the emigration that they fear most. In their attempt to keep the numbers down, they have been forced to a system which is so selective that it must be divisive.
  Mr. Foulkes: Yet the right hon. Gentleman will still vote for the Bill.
  Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way to him. His position was cruelly exposed last night and this morning and he is not prepared to put it to the test again.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Ashdown: At last, an intervention from the side Benches.
  Mr. Wareing: The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the inadequacy of the Bill, and I agree that it is wholly inadequate. Does he agree that the 50,000 people of Hong Kong who will be admitted are possibly the most articulate members of the community? If, as he has been saying, he wants a much more liberal attitude, should we not encourage that articulate minority to speak for the overwhelming majority in Hong Kong? Is he aware that to go into the Division Lobby with the Tories is to go against his whole objective?
  Mr. Ashdown: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the voices from Hong Kong, because they have been articulating precisely that case.
  The Government must understand that their failure of nerve to do what is right and safe for Hong Kong runs a great risk. It is on the judgment of that risk that my party will ultimately base its attitude to the Bill.
  To answer the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), a clear and welcome principle is embodied in the Bill—that Britain must grant the right of abode to its passport holders in Hong Kong. We shall support that principle by voting for the Second Reading tonight, but we shall seek to strengthen and improve the Bill in Committee.
  1592
  Apart from the question of numbers, there are four areas where the Bill must be improved. First, it must be made less divisive. That can be done only by increasing the numbers. Secondly, we must address the needs of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. Thirdly, the Bill must correct the injustice being done to non-British spouses of British expatriates. Lastly, there must be an amendment to the outrageous proposal in the Bill that no decision should be challengeable in any court or by anybody.
  The Government would be wrong to assume that any Bill was necessarily better than no Bill. There comes a point when the numbers are so small and the provisions so divisive that they will create emigration rather than stem it, that they will undermine the credibility of the Hong Kong authorities rather than support them and that they will increase instability in Hong Kong rather than increase the stability of the colony.
  Mr. Tim Janman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I said that I would not give way to two interventions. In that way, I shall give him a better chance of speaking later.
  We will bring that lesson home to the Government during the remaining stages of the Bill, and our judgment of the Bill's value will be based on the extent to which Ministers accept and acknowledge that truth.
  One thing is certain: unlike the Labour party, we will not play domestic politics with the freedom and livelihood of more than 5 million people in Hong Kong. I am sure that I have had as many letters as the Leader of the Opposition, urging me to add to the Government's political troubles by voting against the Bill. They point to the leadership crisis in the Conservative party and argue that this could be the moment when Thatcherism is toppled. All that may be true, but my party, unlike the Labour party, will not hawk its conscience around according to short-term political electoral priorities.
  Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.
  Mr. Ashdown: I give the hon. Gentleman yet another chance. I note that again he is not prepared to intervene. He is willing only to speak from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Janman: May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Standing Committee stage of the Bill? I understand from his comments his desire to see the Bill fully debated in Committee. Given the wide diversity of negative comments about the Bill, does he agree that the whole House would have a greater opportunity to do so if the Committee stage were taken on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs?
  Mr. Ashdown: I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We shall not vote for that. He knows perfectly well that those who vote against the Bill will lose. They want the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor so that they can win by another means. I am not prepared to go along with that. Those who argue for that are deeply irresponsible.
  Nor will we seek, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), to play one ethnic minority off against another. There was a day when the Labour party, once the great defender of the rights of those who are vulnerable at home and abroad, would have responded without equivocation to the call from the

  1593
  people of Hong Kong; but not today. Today, the Labour party, in a grubby search for votes, is prepared to turn a blind eye to the terrible damage that would be done, if the Bill were defeated, to confidence in Hong Kong and to Britain's reputation in the world.
  There was a day when the Labour party opposed the British Nationality Act 1981, with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to the fore; but not today. Today, he has defended that same Act to the last letter. He has argued that the only protection which should be given to British passport holders in Hong Kong should be the pathetic provisions of that Act which he, ironically, also on 4 June, committed his party to repeal. Then, he said:
  "the necessity for repeal … is all the greater, not least because the Bill is largely based not on Government theories about nationality, but on Government fears about immigration."—[0fficial Report, 4 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 1159.]
  But today, it is the Labour party that is helping to fan those fears about immigration.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the Bill is best summed up in his own words as quoted in The Independent on 3 April:
  "When we have decided the manner in which we will oppose the Bill, I shall vote on a matter of principle."
  There is worse still, however, for Labour does not stop at just opposing the Bill; the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has already said that it would not be committed to upholding its provisions were the Labour party to come to power. Thus, the Labour party adds irresponsibility to the abandonment of principle, as no statement is better calculated to increase instability in Hong Kong between now and 1997. What greater inducement could there be to emigrate from Hong Kong than the knowledge that all passport rights could be taken away by a future Labour Government?
  What an irony that, in threatening to remove British passport rights, the Labour party is doing exactly what the Chinese Government have said they will do. Having joined the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) in voting against the Bill, the Labour party will then join the Chinese Government in seeking to nullify it. I wonder, has it any shame about the company it keeps?
  The Labour party's only promise to the people of Hong Kong is that it will allow full democracy in the colony. Has it learnt nothing from the tragedy of the students of Tiananmen square? Democracy is not some kind of lucky charm that can be waved in front of a tank to stop it in its tracks; it needs to be supported and safeguarded. If democracy is to survive, it needs the most powerful safeguards. The most powerful safeguard for democracy after 1997 in Hong Kong lies in the freedom of its people to call in their passport rights as free citizens and go elsewhere. In denying them that freedom, Labour gives Hong Kong democracy with one hand and fatally wounds it with the other.
  The retreat from empire was never going to be easy for this country. It created many difficulties and obstacles, but, for the large part, Britain has behaved honourably and responsibly. We have managed that retreat with dignity, and it is a record of which to be proud. I fear that we are in danger of besmirching that record tonight. The Government's weakness in front of Peking and the inadequacies of the Bill have done us and Hong Kong great harm.
  I have no doubt that our forebears in this House would have responded to the challenges in a way that gave the
  1594
  House its great reputation as a defender of democracy. They would have understood the great issues involved. They would have guarded the importance of standing by a principle and accepted the need for leadership in persuading people of what should be done. They would have recognised Britain's long-term best interests.
  I recall that, in the 1930s, when the Jews fled from Germany, we did not cavil that they did not have our passports, nor did we limit their numbers. We gave them sanctuary freely. Britain benefited and freedom was strengthened by that. Why is it that today we will not do the same for our own passport holders in Hong Kong?
  Today, we rightly wring our hands over what we can do to assure freedom for Lithuanian citizens, bemoaning the fact that our scope for action is small. Why, then, do we turn our backs on those in Hong Kong who hold our passports and whom we have the power and the ability to help?
  We shall vote for the principle of the Bill tonight, but will do so with little enthusiasm, and we shall seek to amend it in Committee. As it stands, it is the very least that Britain should do to honour its responsibilities. Its defeat tonight would amount to a betrayal of the best traditions of our nation, of Britain's long-term best interests in the far east and, above all, of the people of Hong Kong.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I shall not follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), especially as his peroration amounted to 50 per cent. of his speech. I was, however, slightly mystified by the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. Earlier he seemed to say that, although he would vote with the Government on Second Reading, unless the Bill was amended to remove what he saw as its defects he held out the prospect of voting against the Bill on Third Reading.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil then proceeded to call the Bill a betrayal. If it still constitutes a betrayal in his terms after its Committee stage, surely that would cause him to want to vote against it on Third Reading. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to make his position clearer?
  Mr. Ashdown: I am sorry to intervene so early in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but he has asked me a question. I said that the defeat of the Bill tonight would amount to a betrayal—a betrayal which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be prepared not only to join, but lead.
  Mr. Tebbit: I understood that, but would it constitute a betrayal if the Bill were defeated on Third Reading? If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman will not vote against it on Third Reading whether it is amended or not.
  Mr. Ashdown: It would be a betrayal if it was defeated tonight.
  Mr. Tebbit: Oh! It would amount to a betrayal tonight only, so when we come to Third Reading it will be "Not tonight Josephine.". I can see why the right hon. Gentleman said he was standing on principle, unlike the Labour party.
  Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has just said, an hour in politics is a long time as far as the Liberal party is concerned?
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right, and that is particularly true of a Liberal speech lasting an hour.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was asked on several occasions by the right hon. Member for Yeovil how many Hong Kong Chinese the Labour party would admit. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Yeovil got a clear answer, but I can give him that answer in the words of the Labour party as written to a gentleman from Plymouth in a letter dated June 1987. One will appreciate that it has something to do with general election politics. The letter was from Mr. Bert Clough of the policy briefing unit of the Labour party on whose notepaper it was written. He thanked the gentleman from Plymouth for his letter concerning Hong Kong and said:
  "Neil Kinnock has asked me to reply on his behalf.
  Under our proposals British citizens in Hong Kong would become citizens of the British Dependent Territories. This would give them a meaningful citizenship with the right to enter, reside and work in Hong Kong but not the right to enter the UK."
  The answer to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Yeovil about how many Hong Kong Chinese the Labour party would admit is simple—it is none. That was the Labour party's proposal at the time of the general election, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has already observed, an hour in politics can be a long time and 18 months can be even longer. The Labour party is saying to one group of people that it would admit lots and lots of them, but to another that it would not admit any at all. In other words, it is traditional two-faced politics. I shall not go in for any humbug or evasion.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should know more about the Bill that he is opposing. When one of my hon. Friends sought to intervene the right hon. Gentleman said that he would let him intervene if my hon. Friend could state the five criteria to be used for admission. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are seven criteria—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I know where he has gone. He has gone to get a copy of the Bill to read it.
  Although tonight there are clearly two groups of people—one, sadly, my right hon. Friends in the Government and one, the Labour party—who are intent on breaking their election commitment, I am intent on keeping mine. I welcome much of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said today. Certainly no one knows more about immigration than him, which raises a most interesting point. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend said that this was not an immigration Bill. If it is not, it would perhaps have been better if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had taken charge of it rather than lumber the poor, unfortunate Home Secretary, who normally deals with immigration rather than foreign affairs matters. I think that I have my right hon. and learned Friend's support on that, at least, today.
  My right hon. and learned Friend made a good speech, but it was not quite good enough. I do not believe that he had his heart in his own case at all times. I would not go all the way with the right hon. Member for Yeovil, but if 50,000 would offer a good measure of security, would not 60,000 offer 20 per cent. more, and would not 100,000 double the security? My right hon. and learned Friend says no, but I do not believe that he has confidence in the Bill.
  I have one question for my right hon. and learned Friend which arises from his speech. He said that the Bill,
  1596
  if enacted, would do the work intended by section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. If that Act is not to be used, will it be repealed if the Bill is enacted?
  Mr. Waddington: I must assure my right hon. Friend that I said nothing of the sort. I referred to the fact that it would replace the undertakings that we were prepared to give, and in some cases had already given, to those in sensitive occupations. At no time did I deal with section 4(5), which could not be used to fulfil the Bill's purpose because it deals only with the public sector and those who are servants of the Hong Kong Government.
  Mr. Tebbit: I understand what my right hon. and learned Friend says, but, as I understand it, the Bill includes all those who would be included in section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act. So that section of the Act is no longer needed and could be repealed as it would perhaps be better as part of the Bill. We should not have two pieces of legislation covering exactly the same point.
  Mr. Waddington: With respect to my right hon. Friend, section 4(5) does not deal just with Hong Kong.
  Mr. Tebbit: Now we have the point—section 4(5) has a much broader application.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Home Secretary's intervention appears to go back on what he said in response to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). When the hon. Member for Orpington asked about section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act, the Home Secretary said that it was subsumed within the Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is forcing the Home Secretary to admit either that he misinformed the House when the hon. Member for Orpington questioned him or he is misinforming the House now.
  Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is over-excited and a little slow to take the point. As I understand it, my right hon. and learned Friend said that the Bill subsumed it in relation only to Hong Kong obligations, and he wished section 4(5) to remain to use for purposes other than Hong Kong. I believe that that is correct, but if I have not put it correctly, no doubt my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will put it right later.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary also said that there was no point in taking steps that would come to a dead end in 1997—I think those were his words—in relation to an accelerated process of democracy which would be unacceptable to the Chinese authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend nods, and I think that that is right. As the Chinese Government have said that they will recognise the passports that would be issued under the Bill for the use of, for example, entry or exit from Hong Kong, is not the Bill also proposing a dead end? Many Conservative Members are concerned about that.
  I agree with the Bill's aims, which are to stabilise the position in Hong Kong and ensure its continuing prosperity so that it will be an asset to China in 1997.
  I agreed with much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said about the need for the future of Hong Kong to be secured through the relationship between Great Britain and China. That is the only conceivable way in which it can be assured. I shared everyone's emotions on seeing the film of the massacre in Tiananmen square, but in the real world we must assess what can be done in the future as well as

  1597
  express our regrets about what has happened in the past. It is pretty certain that more people have died in civil disturbances in Russia under Mr. Gorbachev than died in Tiananmen square. Perhaps Mr. Gorbachev has a better public relations agency than Peking.
  I agree that we must avoid, not encourage, further large-scale immigration into the United Kingdom. Above all, I welcome the fact that the Bill offers the protection of the right of abode here to those who would be most at risk, on political grounds, after 1997. My difference with the Government is that I believe that the Bill will fail on three counts out of four. There is no difference between any of us about the need to offer the security of a home here to those Hong Kong Chinese who served the Crown, police or judiciary, or might otherwise be at risk, if the mood of China was difficult after the takeover in 1977. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] I understand that there will probably be about 5,000 or so, but it is a matter not of numbers, but of principle. We should stand on principle. I am standing on the principle on which I have stood for many years. Those people would not be those who, when they come from Vietnam, are known in Hong Kong as economic migrants, but true seekers of political asylum.
  I am also concerned about the fate of Asians of Indian descent who are likely to become stateless and possibly refugees. They are clearly not Chinese or British, but Indians. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will intervene most strongly on their behalf with the Government of India to ensure that India undertakes its obligation towards its peoples who have been residing in Hong Kong.
  I said that the Bill would fail in its major purpose, and I shall explain why. It is clear that the Chinese Government regard the Bill as incompatible with the spirit, if not the letter, of the accord. They have no use for the concept of dual loyalties and expect the people of Hong Kong to be Chinese and loyal to China. Clearly, the swearing of allegiance to the Queen and taking up of British nationality are either cynical charades performed for personal gain or require true allegiance to the United Kingdom, not China. In addition, as I understand it, China does not appreciate the almost fruitless efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to persuade other countries to denude Hong Kong of its key people before 1997.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary may not recollect that a man cannot have two masters, but the Chinese certainly do. Therefore, after 1997, they will discriminate against the holders of British passports. What is more, the Hong Kong Chinese know that, too, and for them the British passport is not an inducement to stay beyond 1997, but a ticket to a new life elsewhere, either here, on the continent or wherever. What is more, the sooner the passports are issued, the sooner the 50,000 heads of families—by definition, the key people needed to be kept in Hong Kong—will leave.
  What then? Will we be asked to provide for another 50,000, at least to keep the second eleven in position in Hong Kong? We all sympathise very much with the wish of Hong Kong Chinese to remain, if they had their choice, under the British flag in Hong Kong rather than under communist rule, but that option is not open to them. Their future as Chinese is in China, if Hong Kong is to have a future.
  1598
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made much of our debt of honour to the people of Hong Kong. I accept that debt in respect of those who might be at risk after 1997 because they have served the Crown, but have we a debt of honour to those who have served themselves? Are they not economic migrants no different from the Vietnamese whom Hong Kong is unwilling to accept? What about the debt of honour to the British people? Are not pledges made, not once but four or five times, also matters of honour? As far as I know, none of the people of Hong Kong was enticed there by agents of the Crown, or offered passports to go there; nor was there any doubt that, come 1997, it was certain that all but a tiny part of the colony would revert to China, and there was a clear expectation that the colony would do so, too.
  Before I turn to immigration policy and my objections to the Bill on that ground, I want to make two other points about its drafting—first, on clause 1(5). That was the clause to which the right hon. Members for Yeovil and for Sparkbrook took such exception. It is an effort to judge-proof the Bill. If it is believed that this clause would actually stick in British law, it is a great pity that it was not put into some of our local government legislation.
  Secondly, I welcome the fact that for the first time an immigration measure has been drafted to admit only those likely to be of discernible benefit to our economy as opposed to a liability to our taxpayers. That concept deserves rather wider application, but I am amazed by the extent to which the issue of United Kingdom passports should be delegated to persons not under any direct control of this House, who cannot be called to account in the House under any circumstances.
  I turn now to immigration policy. For good reason, the Conservative election manifesto of February 1974 said this:
  "We have provided the country with the necessary means for preventing any further large scale permanent immigration and also with important new powers for preventing illegal immigrants … the number of new immigrants admitted in 1973 was the lowest since control was first introduced by the previous Conservative Government more than a decade ago … We intend that this decline shall continue".
  A year later, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister became leader of the Conservative party, and in September 1976 an elector in Northamptonshire wrote to her about immigration and received a letter from her private office from which I shall quote the relevant sentence:
  "The last Conservative Government brought in the Immigration Act which from January 1973 stopped nearly all permanent immigration—with two clear exceptions (namely dependants and certain United Kingdom passport holders) … We believe that the numbers coming in must be restricted to the absolute minimum consistent with these undertakings".
  In 1979, my right hon. Friend won the general election, campaigning then, as she has done since, for the strictest possible controls. In 1987, the pledge was repeated in full knowledge of the implication of the Hong Kong accord, in the following words in the party's manifesto. They are familiar to me more than to others in the House as I had something to do with the manifesto:
  "Immigration for settlement is now at its lowest level since control of Commonwealth immigration first began in 1962 … we will tighten the existing law to ensure that control over settlement becomes even more effective".
  Those pledges were made because these islands of ours are already overcrowded and they were made in the belief that great waves of immigration by people who do not share

  1599
  our culture, language or rules of social conduct and who, in many cases, owe no allegiance to our country, were and are destabilising factors in society.
  During the Salman Rushdie affair, some who have lived here for years under the protection of the Crown and holding British passports clearly showed their contempt for our society and our laws. It became clear to many people that a dual system was operating in this country under which people who had been clearly seen inciting others to murder were not brought to book. I shall not rehearse all those arguments; I merely state that if we are not to see social upheaval arising from religious, cultural and ethnic differences, we have more than enough to do to integrate existing communities into British society without adding to that burden or exacerbating existing problems.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to one of my views: how can I explain to my constituents of Indian, Pakistani or Singhalese origin that we have no room here for their families to join them but we have room for 250,000 Chinese?
  Mr. Waddington: No Conservative Member has said that there is no room for the families of those who are settled here. The immigration rules give them the right to bring in their families and I pointed out in my speech how great a proportion of total immigration into this country such people constitute.
  Mr. Tebbit: My right hon. and learned Friend says that there is room for them, but not just yet. If he believed that there was room, he would increase the resources available to process their applications, but I know that that is not being done—
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Tebbit: No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
  I will not take any stick from Opposition Members over the processing of applications, because the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was critical of the fact that almost 20 years after the Ugandan Asians came here there were some people who, although they appeared to have been entitled to come here, were still kicking around the world without visas—[Interruption.] I remind the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who has just spoken from a sedentary position, that there was a Labour Government in the intervening period. What happened to the vouchers then? Why were they not honoured by the Labour Home Secretary when he was in power? The Opposition have no right to enter the debate with words of that kind.
  Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Tebbit: I would rather not.
  We all know what our constituents feel about this Bill. According to my secretary, I have received more than 10,000 letters on this issue—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What, all from Chingford?
  Mr. Tebbit: —so I have some idea of how other hon. Members' constituents feel, too. I have received 10,000 letters from all over the country, including, I suspect, some from Opposition Members' constituents.
  1600
  A recent poll in The Independent on Sunday showed opinion to be split about 65 per cent. to 25 per cent. against the Government's proposals. Only 11 per cent. of the electors say that the Government should admit more Hong Kong Chinese, and by 84 per cent. to 13 per cent. the people of Britain say that there should be tighter restrictions on immigration. I might add that a rather higher percentage of Liberal Democrat supporters believe that than do supporters of the Labour party, which must be a great comfort to the right hon. Member for Yeovil.
  I end by addressing a few remarks to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The poll that I mentioned also showed that no fewer than 59 per cent. of the electorate declared themselves "don't knows" when asked which of the parties had the best policy on immigration. They are confused and bitterly disappointed by the Government's policy U-turn—
  Mr. Cormack: And my right hon. Friend is responsible for that.
  Mr. Tebbit: —which they say, by 13 per cent. to 1 per cent., will make them less rather than more inclined to vote Conservative.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) must recognise that since I made my views known in public immediately after the issue arose in the House of Commons I have given no television interviews or written any articles about it. The issue will be decided here tonight, not out there in the country. [Interruption.] I have sought to show what the state of opinion is out there and I believe that we should listen to that opinion, but I did not seek to cause that opinion to be made. It was there.
  Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend knows full well that he has been portrayed throughout the country as the leader of this so-called revolt tonight. He knows jolly well that there has been no U-turn by the Government. As a former chairman of the Conservative party, he knows that manifestos cannot be cast in stone and that circumstances sometimes oblige Governments to change. He has done a grave disservice to the party which in the past he has served so well.
  Mr. Tebbit: I did not want my hon. Friend to establish in the minds of many more people the enormous influence which he seems to think that I have. If he believes that I have created this wave of opinion in a matter of a few weeks, he must think that I am one of the most powerful politicians in Britain, and certainly that I have a much better rapport with public opinion than he has. I cannot imagine that he would ever be able to move public opinion to the extent that he has ascribed to me.
  I agree with my hon. Friend. There are occasions when Governments have to say that, for good reason, they cannot deliver what was in their manifesto. But this is not a good reason. All the circumstances were envisaged when the manifesto was written and we should remain firm on it.
  That is perhaps even more relevant. I had not expected to have the pleasure of hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), but my mind went back to November 1972 when he introduced legislation to provide for state control of prices and incomes. It was a deeply unpopular Bill. It broke a clear and specific election pledge and it flew in the face of Conservative beliefs. My right hon. Friend believed that that Bill was in the interests of the country at that time.

  1601
  In their hearts, a clear majority of Conservative Back-Benchers knew that the Bill was wrong. We should have defeated it on Second Reading, but the Government were unpopular and the Whips argued that the Prime Minister's authority and position would be seriously damaged if there was a revolt against the Bill. The Labour party, which has always hankered after such controls, did, of course, vote against the Bill. I was one of those who was persuaded, against his judgment, to vote for it. In February 1974, the Government were trapped by a miners' dispute which they could not settle without breaking their own prices and incomes laws.
  So I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends whether they will make the mistake that I made in 1972. What would the Conservative party Whips be saying if this had been a Labour Government's proposal? Would we be supporting it in breach of our election commitments? If we would have voted against a Labour Hong Kong Bill, why should we vote for it just because it is brought forward by a Conservative Government? [Interruption.] A voice says, "What about the poll tax?" That was in the Conservative party manifesto and I have voted for it at every turn.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government tonight with a heavy heart. In 20 years in the House I have never yet voted against my party Whips.
  Mr Cormack: Really?
  Mr. Tebbit: Yes, really. My hon. Friend has a more vigorous record in voting against the Government than I have.
  Tonight I have had to choose between the Government and the Whips on the one hand and my party and its clear commitment to the voters who elected them to office on the other. That is why I will oppose the Bill tonight and stand by my commitment to the electors which I made in 1987.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I should make plain that I have not selected for debate the amendment in his name and the names of his hon. Friends because it is beyond the scope of the Bill. He may draw attention to it in his speech without speaking to it.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: Whenever the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) seeks to persuade us that he is standing on principle, I—and, I suspect, some of the troops whom he is seeking to lead into the Lobby against the Government tonight—rush for cover.
  I represent a constituency a third of whose inhabitants are of Asian origin. One of my endearing memories of the right hon. Gentleman as chairman of the Conservative party is the regular visits that he made to my city and other cities like it seeking to persuade black and Asian British citizens that the Conservative party was anxious to secure their electoral support and in government was doing everything possible to sustain and nurture the prosperity of black and Asian communities in Britain.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was in sharp contradiction to the statements that he made as chairman of the Conservative party on these matters and to the statements that he has made in recent weeks and months as we approached the debate on the Bill.
  1602
  I thought that I heard gasps around the Chamber when the right hon. Gentleman sought to persuade us that he was not the leader of the campaign within the Conservative party against the Bill. Could I have been wrong? An avalanche of propaganda has been generated by the right hon. Gentleman seeking to persuade the British public that an army of Conservative Members of Parliament were anxious to follow him into the Lobby tonight to vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Tebbit: First, I find nothing inconsistent between what I have said as chairman of the Conservative party, Secretary of State or in any other office that I have held, and what I have said this evening. As I said this evening, I believe strongly in the integration of immigrant communities into our country. That is the only way forward. New waves of immigration will hold hack that process and that is one of the principal reasons why I am against new waves of immigration.
  Secondly, with regard to generating waves of publicity, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I have one employee only, a secretary, and that if she and I between us could have generated all the publicity, my goodness me, we should take over Conservative central office and do its work more cheaply than it is doing it at the moment.
  Mr. Madden: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman did take over Conservative central office on one occasion, and I do not want to speculate on why he no longer holds that office.
  But the campaign that I still believe the right hon. Gentleman has been orchestrating during recent weeks and months has fundamentally changed in character during that period. Initially, he sought to oppose the Bill on straight immigration grounds. Subsequently, he sought to argue that he was against the Bill because it would upset all those people in Hong Kong who would not be eligible for British passports.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Nor can he conceal the fact that large numbers of people will shortly be eligible to come into Britain. We hear very little from the right hon. Gentleman or his acolytes about the 300 million EEC nationals who, after 1992, will be able to enter Britain and seek employment without a work permit. They will be able to establish businesses without any evidence of funds. They will also be able to bring their spouses, children aged up to 21, parents and grandparents.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: In this case I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about the fundamentals of the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there is a big difference between the European Community's reciprocal rights of residence, work and abode and the right of immigration into a country?
  Mr. Madden: What I will say is that most of these people will be white. That is why we do not hear very much from the right hon. Member for Chingford or his supporters about the 500,000 citizens of Macau who have been given a right of abode by the Portuguese Government, and who can also enter the United Kingdom after 1992 under the same rules. We do not hear anything from the right hon. Gentleman or his supporters about the 1 million British citizens in South Africa who could also come into this country without difficulty in the near future, or about the 8 million to 9 million British citizens in the old

  1603
  Commonwealth who have the right of abode and could enter. Between 300 million and 400 million people could flood into the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future, but we hear nothing about that from Conservative Members, especially the supporters of the right hon. Member for Chingford.
  I must declare an interest: I was invited to Hong Kong last week by the Hong Kong Government. It was a valuable opportunity for me to have discussions with a large number of individuals and organisations between the publication of the Bill and this debate. Hon. Members from both sides of the House were also present, and I am sure that we all found the visit helpful.
  It was clear to us that the vast majority of people in Hong Kong regard the Bill, and the scheme to allow just 50,000 heads of household to have British citizenship and the right of abode here, as a complete and utter irrelevance.
  The vast majority of Hong Kong people do not want to leave Hong Kong, which they regard as their home. Many do not want to come here because they cannot afford to leave; the option of emigration is not theirs because they have not the money to exercise it. However, large numbers —1,000 a week—are now leaving, and that exodus is a potential threat to the viability of the Hong Kong economy. We need to consider what action needs to be taken now to stem it, and that is what the Bill is all about.
  We hear much about democracy and the lack of it. If there is any blame for the absence of democracy in Hong Kong, I suggest that the accusing finger should be pointed at successive Governments of both political persuasions, spanning more than a century. For 150 years, Britain has administered Hong Kong—some say paternalistically; many would say in a most authoritarian way. If any criticism is to be made about the absence of democracy and the lack of enthusiasm for it among the Hong Kong people, surely the blame lies squarely with those Governments, but I question whether such an absence of democracy is a modern reality in China.
  On our visit, we were shown photographs of the 1 million people in Hong Kong who came out on the streets before the Tiananmen square massacre to show their solidarity with the people of China—their relatives, their friends and their own people. They came out on to the streets to demonstrate their solidarity with the movement towards democracy, and stood in silent empathy and solidarity with the Chinese people. The massacre of 4 June had an enormous impact on the Hong Kong people. For months afterwards, they wore black armbands to show their solidarity, and their disgust with the actions of the Chinese Government. Even now, armies of Chinese police, agents and others are scouring the campuses of China to try to identify those who were active in the democracy movement, especially its leaders.
  Every day 75 refugees go legally from China into Hong Kong; more than 100 seek to enter it illegally, and many who are detected are sent back. I plead with the House to understand that democracy is an extremely fragile entity in Hong Kong, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that we must do more to ensure that it progresses.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) replies to the debate,
  1604
  I should like to hear what the next Labour Government would do to ensure that there is one person, one vote—full democracy—in Hong Kong before 1997, when the Chinese take over. If our claims to support the extension of democracy are to be credible, or to command support in Hong Kong and in Britain, we must spell out clearly whether we would take unilateral action to ensure that that full democracy was introduced in Hong Kong before 1997. We must have firm and clear assurances about the methods by which we would seek to do that. Few of the people to whom I spoke in Hong Kong last week, from the governor down, gave any hint or made any suggestion that the Chinese Government are any more amenable now to progress towards full democracy in Hong Kong than they have been in recent years since the negotiations took place.
  We all recognise that there are major defects in the Bill. In my view—and in that of other hon. Members who would have wished to support the amendment—the figure in the Bill should be removed: such matters should be dealt with on the principle of fairness and justice. However, once we enter the numbers game, we are inevitably in the business of arbitrary and highly subjective criteria, which in this case are totally secret. There will inevitably be divisiveness if people do not know the basis on which the selection is made.
  A fundamental reform must include the right of appeal for those people who are refused British citizenship and the right of abode here. Surely basic justice demands such a right of appeal. One of the long-standing grievances of the British Nationality Act 1981 is that people are given no explanation of why their application has been refused, and they have no right of appeal against that refusal.
  We must remove the nonsense of the 500 top business men who will be invited by the governor to apply: that is wholly unacceptable, and should be deleted. We should also snuff out the proposal—still lingering on—that would effectively enable British companies to nominate people to become British citizens. That is wholly unacceptable and undemocratic. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that scheme is dead and buried, and will not be revived.
  We need to protect and safeguard political activists who have been in the vanguard of building democracy in Hong Kong and who are totally excluded from the scheme. We also need to ensure that there are genuine provisions for public service and local government workers. At the moment, there are no provisions whatever for social workers, who are leaving Hong Kong in large numbers and who are vital for the future of Hong Kong. Of course we need to ensure that those who are entitled to a British passport are not cash-limited by that arbitrary figure of 50,000.
  Many in Hong Kong obviously consider British passports as an insurance policy; however, people are leaving Hong Kong for various reasons. There are those who are leaving to improve their economic prospects. Others are leaving because they are desperately worried about the safety of their families. Others are leaving, particularly for Canada, Australia, America and Singapore, to secure an overseas passport, and they have to live in those countries for two or three years to get the necessary residential qualifications.
  The brightest and the best in Hong Kong do not want to come to Britain. Many of those who want to emigrate are not seeking to come to Britain. They do not see their future here, but they want an insurance policy. I hope that

  1605
  we shall make proper safeguards for the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. I am totally dissatisfied with the assurances given so far by the Home Secretary. I should like to see much better safeguards for the non-British spouses of British citizens in Hong Kong.
  I urge the House to understand that it is not just a matter of insurance policies. The most important aspect of giving British citizenship to the largest possible number of people in Hong Kong is to place an effective sanction and to put effective pressure on the Chinese Government so that they know that, if they treat Hong Kong badly and unfairly after 1997, a significant number of Hong Kong British citizens will be able to vote with their feet and leave Hong Kong safely and in an orderly fashion.
  That is what the Bill is all about. It is a totally inadequate and defective measure. It represents a shoddy and shabby compromise of a debt of honour to a country from which we have derived enormous economic benefits over 150 years to people who thought they were British citizens and who look to Britain as their home and to Parliament as their House of Commons and their democratic defence. It is a shoddy and inadequate Bill.
  I shall abstain tonight and I shall seek with others to improve the Bill in the ways that I have suggested. I urge those who seek to demolish the Bill for motives which many of them do not have the guts to articulate publicly to think very carefully indeed. Not only are they playing with the lives of many in Hong Kong: they are playing with the destiny of that country and the relationship of Britain with mainland China.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that that is an important matter. If we seek further to appease China, the plight of the people of Hong Kong. with or without democracy, will be extremely difficult up to and after 1997. Let us agree that the Bill is of modest help. Let us seek to improve it and, above all, let us remember that the best interests of the men, women and children of Hong Kong lie in offering British citizenship and the right of abode. The vast majority do not wish to exercise that option, but they need our reassurance and commitment. The Bill goes a little way towards offering that commitment and protection.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Speeches between now and 9 o'clock are limited to 10 minutes.
  7.4 pm
  Sir Peter Blaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) made some good points, but I disagree with the view that a faster pace towards democracy is the answer to the problem which the Bill seeks to address. Indeed, if a faster pace towards democracy were to lead to confrontation with Peking, confidence in Hong Kong would be weakened rather than strengthened.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has left the Chamber. His speech set a new record for prevarication and obfuscation. So far as I could make any sense of what he said about granting passports or the right of abode to Hong Kong Chinese, it appeared that fewer passports would be granted but there would be more rights of abode granted to people from the Caribbean and south Asia. There is an
  1606
  important distinction between those groups. The people from Hong Kong would not want to come here whereas the others would come here at once.
  The House knows of my lifelong interest in Hong Kong. For the past 20 years I have had no financial interests there, but I have a deep political interest in doing what we can to perpetuate the amazing success that Hong Kong has achieved. The rejection of the Bill would be damaging to Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. The Hong Kong brain drain would certainly accelerate and there would be a decline in the economy. Other countries such as Canada and Australia are not worried about inviting people from Hong Kong who are of great merit or importance to Hong Kong to emigrate to those countries.
  Nor should we be worried about the fact that those to whom passports will be granted are the people who are most important to Hong Kong. If the Bill were rejected, more raids would be made by other countries on the skilled people of Hong Kong. Recently, a United States medical centre wrote to all 74 radiographers in Hong Kong inviting them to join that organisation and offering them help in obtaining United States passports. Qantas sent recruiters to Hong Kong to lure away several hundred mechanics from the Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering company. Fortunately, those efforts met with little success, but such attempts would be accelerated if the Bill were rejected. Other countries would increase their quotas for immigration from Hong Kong in the misguided view that that would help.
  The Bill is a credit to Her Majesty's Government, especially the new concept that selected people from Hong Kong would be able to get United Kingdom passports without having to spend several years working here first, thus damaging Hong Kong's prospects.
  The rejection of the Bill would also be damaging to the United Kingdom. It would certainly damage our reputation for fulfilling our obligations. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will attach importance to that. It would damage our economy. Our visible and invisible exports to Hong Kong represent more than £2 billion a year. If the Hong Kong economy is damaged, those exports will suffer. The total net assets of companies in Hong Kong controlled from the United Kingdom are £6 billion. The gross stock market value of British-owned, controlled or managed companies in Hong Kong is £19 billion and those companies would suffer. If sufficient damage is done to the economy of Hong Kong, that will reduce the value of Hong Kong to China, and the economic value of Hong Kong to China is its most important safeguard.
  I believe that the Chinese intend to observe the joint declaration and agreement of 1984, but I profoundly believe that a bit of Chinese self-interest is a better guarantee still. As long as Hong Kong continues to carry one third of China's foreign trade, and to account for one third of China's foreign exchange earnings and for two thirds of the value of foreign investment in China, that is a good safeguard that China will observe the joint declaration.
  By damaging confidence and the economy in Hong Kong, rejection of the Bill would increase the possibility that we might see what the governor described as the "Armageddon" scenario. There might be a flood of refugees from Hong Kong whom we would be obliged to do our best to take, and we might be obliged to take more than those for whom the Bill provides passports.

  1607
  I have received representations from several British companies with business interests in Hong Kong. I shall read a letter from Geoffrey Maddrell, chief executive of the Tootal Group, which I received in November before the Government announced the policy encapsulated in the Bill. He explains the links that his company has with China through Hong Kong. He says:
  "The total turnover of companies"—
  that is in the Tootal Group—
  "dependent on supplies out of China is around £75 million this year"—
  1989—
  "and earns approximately 10 per cent. in pre-tax profit. The continued success of our investment and interest in China depends very largely on our key managers in Hong Kong",
  who are working in China supervising Tootal's joint ventures. He continues:
  "However, in the current uncertainty surrounding British Government Policy all the senior managers are preparing to emigrate to obtain citizenship of Canada and Australia. They are taking this course of action as an insurance for the future, not because they wish to leave Hong Kong. In consequence, should they be offered right of abode in the UK, it is not their intention to exercise that right."
  He says later in his letter, and I repeat that it was written before the announcement of the Government's policy:
  "Tootal would seek rights of protection for some 25 managers and their families by issuing them with a full British Passport with right of abode in the UK."
  I spoke two days ago to Mr. Maddrell to discover his reaction to the Government's policy. He said that his managers are waiting to see whether the Bill is passed. If it is rejected, they will accelerate their attempts to move to Canada or Australia.
  Mr. Tebbit rose—
  Sir Eldon Griffiths rose—
  Sir Peter Blaker: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
  That letter shows two things: first, that the few passports that will be given to key people in Hong Kong will make a tremendous difference; and, secondly—this is the key point—that we are talking not about people who are keen to leave Hong Kong but about people who want to stay there.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) that all of us may face far heavier obligations and much more difficult problems in 1997 than we face today. We may have to take on far greater obligations to meet a disaster at that time than we are faced with at present.
  Nobody can contribute realistically to the debate who is not prepared at least to identify the problem and to seek to remedy it. The problem will be between now and 1997. We are all agreed that there has been a massive loss of confidence in Hong Kong since the events of Tiananmen square. There is a heavy outflow of people who have the skills and responsibilities essential to the successful running of the colony over the next seven years and to its prosperity.
  That is the problem. How will we—"prevent" is too strong a word—mitigate or slow the outflow of people from Hong Kong who are necessary to it? I believe that my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham,
  1608
  Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who I understand will wind up the debate, have somewhat misled themselves in their arguments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that his solution to the problem is to introduce democracy in Hong Kong. I am very much in favour of that and it is not impossible for Britain to do so—after all, we remain masters of the colony until 1997—but China has issued the Basic Law and everyone in Hong Kong knows that. However far democracy has advanced in Hong Kong, if the Chinese wish to roll it back they have the power to do so. Therefore, unless there is a great change in China, we cannot offer additional confidence to the people of Hong Kong by telling them that a Labour Government will introduce democracy in Hong Kong. It is no way out to say that we shall introduce democracy and restore confidence in Hong Kong between now and 1997. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has misled himself on that point.
  My right hon. Friend also misled himself on another major point—his assessment of the reaction of other ethnic communities in the United Kingdom to the passing of the Bill. I represent a large ethnic community and I can assure him that no such anxieties have been expressed by my constituents. I am certain that the grievances that my right hon. Friend properly expressed on behalf of the immigrant communities will be dealt with when a Labour Government take office. As my right hon. Friends and I expect that there will be a Labour Government within the next two years, putting right the grievances of the ethnic minorities should not be used as an excuse for denying people in Hong Kong the possibility and prospect of coming to the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend has misled himself on two quite major matters.
  I shall deal briefly with the criticisms that have been made of the Bill. It has been said that the scheme is selective, which is so, but is anyone, except the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), realistically arguing for a general, all-embracing and non-selective United Kingdom scheme? With the exception of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, I have heard no one arguing for that. Critics say that we need different categories for selective admission in addition to those already in the Bill. To some extent, that is so, and I wholly share the views of those who have expressed the unsatisfactory position of the non-ethnic Chinese in China and the need for far stronger guarantees for their future, otherwise they will be citizenless after 1997.
  I was glad to hear what the Home Secretary had to say about war widows and other widows, but there are other categories, including students, for whom the Select Committee recommended we should make special provision in assisting them to obtain nationality. I should like to see those categories included.
  The categories are no substitute for a scheme to help to stem the exodus of key personnel from Hong Kong. War widows do not help in manning difficult positions in the Hong Kong police force, civil service or business, nor necessarily do ethnic minorities who are unfranchised or denied citizenship. Students certainly cannot assist in that respect. We must return to the main point and say that we must have a scheme to help to stem the exodus of key personnel from Hong Kong.
  It has also been said that the proposal is elitist, not merely selective. In a sense, it is because the people concerned are key personnel. However, the House should

  1609
  bear it in mind that the main categories cited in the Bill and in the supporting papers are very similar to those in the work permit scheme, which we have operated under successive Governments for the past 20 years. I shall read out the list in the latest 1980 edition of the work permit scheme. Whom do we allow in other than relatives—who are a separate matter? We allow in

  "(a) those holding recognised professional qualifications;

  (b) administrative and executive staff;

  (c) highly qualified technicians having specialised experience;

  (d) other key workers with a high or scarce qualification in an industry or occupation requiring specific expert knowledge or skills;"

  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shore: I am sorry. I cannot give way because of the time factor.
  I do not accept that the scheme can be described as elitist because of the perfectly sensible and open categories that are established. The scheme includes—and we must be clear on the range of people—judges, civil servants, Customs and Excise officials, the fire service, the immigration department, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Royal Hong Kong Police, the military garrison, engineers, architects, air traffic controllers, editors, doctors, chemists, midwives, nurses, physiotherapists, teachers and education administrators. Those categories add up to no fewer than 24,000 of the 50,000 promised passports. Many of the remaining 26,000 passports will have to go to managers and executives, but the balance may be wrong and overloaded in favour of those categories. That is a matter to be debated later.
  The scheme has a number of obvious defects and some have been well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The lack of review procedure and clause 1(5) are intolerable, as is the lack of help for people who may be in political danger in Hong Kong because of their expression of opposition to the Chinese Government. Such help must be included. There can be no guarantee that the Bill will succeed, but no serious alternative has been proposed. It is essential that the people of Hong Kong should not be given the impression that we have washed our hands of their problems. That would have a disastrous effect on the people there and on the international community, whose help we may need far more in 1997 if the Chinese tear up the joint declaration. For those reasons, I shall not vote against Second Reading and I hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I had prepared some remarks today that sought to expose the rather hollow and internally contradictory nature of the speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the basis of what he had said before about the Labour Government's contradictory position on the issue. However, it has turned out to be unnecessary for me to make a speech on those lines because the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has just made it for me most persuasively. I hope that Opposition Members have listened carefully to what he said. His speech was most persuasive and could be taken as an argument in support of the Bill, although he has said that he intends to abstain.
  1610
  As we debate the Bill today, people are leaving Hong Kong at the rate of about 1,000 a day and it is important to bear that background in mind. Many are the most able and entrepreneurial people whom the colony badly needs to keep it going as a thriving community. It is, therefore, not a day too soon for the House to be asked to approve the Bill, which has my strong support. It is clear that the Bill's prime purpose is to staunch the outflow of people from Hong Kong and to encourage what the Americans call the "movers and shakers" to remain in the colony until 1997 and, we hope, well beyond that. The Bill will help to do that and it is a necessary confidence-building measure.
  The upper limit of 50,000, which is on the face of the Bill, is fewer than many in the Hong Kong community would have liked and it is certainly fewer than they argued for originally. However, it is equally far fewer than the number who might have to come here in a future crisis if the policy goes wrong. On the other hand, the figure is many more than some of my right hon. and hon. Friends seem prepared to accept, for the reasons set out so cogently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Ministers may be tempted to feel that they have got it about right as they find themselves between the Scylla and Charybdis of the two positions. I believe that it is the least that we should be offering in the circumstances to the people of Hong Kong and I shall explain why briefly.
  First, the Bill is an insurance policy, as many other hon. Members have said, which should give many of the key people the confidence to remain in Hong Kong. That is the cardinal point. Whether it will succeed in that venture is a matter of judgment and cannot be proved at this stage. Secondly, it is only if Britain takes the lead in this way and at least in part fulfils one of its last colonial responsibilities that we shall be able to look to other nations to play a fuller part in any rescue operation that may be needed in the event of the Peking regime reneging on its solemn commitment of 1984. I strongly hope that does not happen, but when one enters the realm of insurance policies, one must guard against all risks and one has to think of the chances of the Government persuading their partner nations such as the United States and those in the Commonwealth and elsewhere to pull their weight in the event of that coming about.
  Thirdly, the Bill is wholly consistent with the terms of our agreement with the Chinese, which never precluded our right to grant full British citizenship to people in Hong Kong. Fourthly, it can always be argued that any immigration arrangements run the risk of causing bitterness and resentment for some, especially those who cannot fulfil their wishes or who fall just the wrong side of some official dividing line. The point was made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and it is not an adequate argument against having the criteria for selection that are envisaged in the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, all such measures from time immemorial have involved a degree of selection and the House must face that reality.
  Fifthly, even if as many as 250,000 people, as distinct from passport holders, come from Hong Kong to Britain in the future, I am convinced—and I know that a number of my constituents are convinced—that they would prove to be a great asset to this country. The key point is that as long as the policy works—and I have already said that there can be no certainty that it will work 100 per cent. —these people will remain an asset in Hong Kong and will

  1611
  be to our own considerable economic and trading benefit, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said.
  On the other hand, if the policy were not to work as intended and if all those who were entitled to do so came to this country, they would be a great asset to us in due course. All the evidence from the Hong Kong people who are already established in this country—and I remind the House that there are many of them—suggests that would be so. Similar evidence of Asian people who have settled on the Pacific coast of the United States and in Canada corroborates that conclusion. One has only to ask people who know of those circumstances. Asians have solid family lives, they believe in the value of education and getting on, and they tend to be self-sufficient high achievers. In short, they are exactly the sort of people—and I emphasise this to my right hon. and hon. Friends who may have doubts about the Bill—whom we should welcome if they ever felt the need to come to this country.
  The opposition to the Bill is rather shabby. It is disingenuous in the case of the Labour party and distasteful in the case of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Bill is a sensible and timely response to an important problem which is principally the responsibility of this country and this Government. The Bill has my strong support.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Honour is not a common component of political conduct, and in matters to do with nationality and immigration, British Governments over the years have behaved with craven dishonour. This mother of Parliaments—this exemplar of parliamentary democracy—has, over the post-colonial years, evaded and abandoned its responsibilities. It has dishonourably created a series of lesser, second-class nationalities. The French and Portuguese, with the same sort of history, have behaved with much greater rectitude and responsibility.
  Now we have come to these convoluted arrangements over Hong Kong. We have a direct responsibility for the people of Hong Kong until 1997, and of the two major parties neither the Government nor the Opposition are facing up honourably to those responsibilities. I grudgingly admit that it is perhaps the Liberal Democrats who are being truest to those responsibilities.
  The only just solution would be—and must be—the restoration of full British citizenship to all British nationals in Hong Kong. Then, of course, the scream would go up, helped by some of the more disreputable characters in the House, "You are letting in 3¼ million Chinese." What a load of rubbish. Of course nothing of the sort would happen. And who in their senses would want to come to Thatcher's Britain, with its inequality, its collapsing public services, its general tattiness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Us."] You fellows cannot get away; you are stuck here. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you doing about it?"] I am trying to improve matters; I usually seek to try to improve the state of Britain.
  There is little evidence that many of the 3¼ million Hong Kong Chinese who hold British passports without right of abode would want to settle in Britain anyway. An opinion poll taken in the colony early last year showed that, of the
  1612
  38 per cent. who would emigrate given the chance, only 6 per cent. would choose to come to Britain, so the nonsense about 3¼ million Chinese coming to Britain is easily dismissed. Incidentally, what a shot in the arm an influx of Hong Kongers would give to the tired, underperforming economy of this damaged country.
  The Bill and the proposed scheme are profoundly unsatisfactory. Their purpose is supposedly to restore confidence in the colony and staunch the flow of emigrants, which reached 50,000 this year. But the arbitrary and limited figure of 50,000 households is a one-off arrangement that does not ensure Britain's continuing commitment to Hong Kongers. In effect, the Government are saying to most of Hong Kong's many millions, "We are concerned only about those of you who are close to us—those of you who work with us, who are successful and whose future we choose to ensure. Come 1997," the message is, "the rest of you can go hang."
  That is not a proposition that I am prepared to support. The chosen few will have been nominated within a year or so. Where is the flexibility in the scheme to allow us to deal with changing events in the years up to 1997? Perhaps the Labour party should consider that there is a possibility that a Labour Cabinet and a Labour party conference may have to cope with the unfolding crises in those years.
  The scheme should be flexible, and open to review as events develop in China and in Hong Kong, to ensure the healthy functioning of that territory. Anyone whose application for registration under the scheme is turned down will he given no reason for the refusal and will have no possibility of appeal. Absolute discretion is vested in the Home Secretary, and with a Home Secretary of the calibre of the present incumbent—whose premise when he had responsibility for immigration matters was that if immigration control was not hurting, it was not working—that is not a heartening prospect.
  The scheme's most damaging flaw is its disregard for the non-Chinese ethnic minorities who have no nationality other than British and who will become stateless after 1997. In all justice, special consideration should have been given to that category in a loading of points. Better still, those people should be given special dispensation to gain full and proper British citizenship. I trust that the Labour party will do that if we come to government.
  The Opposition's amendment to commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House I shall, of course, support. But what would we do in government? I was not reassured by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The Chinese have passed the Basic Law, and we should be foolish, if we came to government, to try to reopen that issue.
  We shall not be able to increase the number of elected Members in the process of democratisation that we have promised in the Government of Hong Kong before 1997. The Chinese will not budge from the figure of 20 elected Members of the Legislative Council. I hope that we shall be wise enough not to try to stir up difficulties and further damage confidence in the last two or three years of our responsibility by attempting to increase that figure to 40 or 60. The urgent need is to try to maintain confidence and economic performance in Hong Kong now.
  So how must I vote? I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) would be here. He has pretended some interest in this matter and taken on himself the leadership of the faction in the Tory party that fans every skinhead eruption of racism. His mail bag

  1613
  which he quoted proves that. For years, his only distinguishing feature has been his viciousness. A character such as he could only have flourished under a Thatcher Administration, with their mean-mindedness, and their lack of concern and conscience. He will vote against the Bill. For all the Bill's inadequacies and selectivity, I shall support the Government tonight, if only personally to cancel out the vote of that disagreeable and non-admirable right hon. Member for Chingford.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Paul Channon: As usual, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) has gone over the top. His remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) were ludicrous, as the House well understands. One may or may not disagree with my right hon. Friend, but he represents a point of view that he is wholly entitled to express.
  On the other hand, at least the hon. Member for Warley, East made his position clear. We know where he stands, just as we know where the Liberal Democrats stand, and although I disagree with him, I believe that he has done the House a service in that respect. We must ask the Labour party what it would do. Our debate tonight is being watched not only here but in Hong Kong, and the people of Hong Kong are entitled to know what a Labour Government would do. It is wholly unreasonable for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to take refuge in a whole collection of clichés and weasel words designed to obscure, rather than saying clearly to the people of Hong Kong what the Labour party would do if it won a general election and came to power.
  The hon. Member for Warley, East was entirely right about democracy. Of course we should all like to see more democracy in Hong Kong, and that is conceivable; it is possible that, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, we could get a little more democracy, but in view of the Basic Law recently passed in Peking, that seems improbable even if it is worth trying. It is no good building a policy on the flimsy, implausible and improbable assumptions outlined in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is not here at present but who will wind up the debate, also has a lot to answer for. Whatever he may or may not have said in Hong Kong, his remarks have been widely misunderstood. I hope that he will speak clearly to the House so that people in Hong Kong, who may have misunderstood his remarks, may know what will happen if the Bill is passed and a Labour Government come to power.
  In view of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I should at once declare an interest by saying that, like the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I have been to Hong Kong recently. That was well worth doing, because I think that I now have some impression of what the state of opinion in Hong Kong is.
  The House must answer two questions. Will the package that the Government propose lead—as many of my hon. Friends believe it will—to large-scale immigration into Britain? The question whether it would matter if it did is a different question altogether. Secondly, will the package actually work in Hong Kong?
  1614
  In many ways, the package is unfair and flawed, but any package would be unfair and flawed. I do not kow how anyone could devise a package which was not unfair and flawed. I agree with many of the criticisms of the Bill. I agree in particular with the criticisms of clause 1(5) and the fact that there is is no appeal against an arbitrary decision which may mean the difference between a happy and successful life and a life that could be very unhappy indeed.
  Many small groups will be unfairly treated. I was grateful for the comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I would be extremeley grateful if he would consider the position of non-United Kingdom spouses of British citizens. For example, as I understand it, if a British husband was to die in Hong Kong now, his wife would have no right to come to this country. That would be invidious when we consider what would happen in the case of a Hong Kong citizen who is given a passport and whose wife would have automatic right of entry. Many other questions must also be answered later.
  I believe that the package might work for a while, but I do not have any great confidence in its long-term future. The only important factor that will settle the future of Hong Kong is the attitude of the Chinese Government to what happens in Hong Kong. We do not really know what that attitude is or what it will be after Tiananmen square. Do the Chinese Government still believe that Hong Kong is so valuable to them that it is worth preserving, or do they see it as a hotbed of people trying to intrigue for democracy against the wishes of the Chinese People's Government? That is the great difficulty.
  If the Chinese position improves, people will stay in Hong Kong. If not, they will go—if not now, then later. I fear that, in many cases, our policy towards Hong Kong is waiting for something to turn up. Perhaps it will and perhaps it will not. We do not know whether the Chinese Government will change before 1997 and, if they do change, whether they will be any better. Some people believe that the Chinese Government will be better, but that is a flimsy basis for policy.
  The package is designed to make people stay. I believe that people will stay for a few years. Some may stay until 1997 and see what happens. Others will not take that risk; who can blame them, when the Chinese Government make statements like those that they have made recently?
  There is a risk that the package will work for just a short time and that the House will have to return to issue before 1997. We delude ourselves if we believe that the Bill will be the last word. What we should do about the situation goodness only knows, but I believe that the issue will not go away.
  There is some evidence that people will stay for the time being at least. Singapore has offered many places. People are not leaving Hong Kong for Singapore, but they have the security that Singapore provides. I believe that it matters if people leave Hong Kong. A dramatic outflow of skilled people that will weaken the Hong Kong economy is in no one's interests.
  Even from narrow British self-interest, that is true, because Hong Kong receives billions of pounds of United Kingdom investment. If we include invisible investments, I suspect that British investment is greater than that of America or Japan. However, the Hong Kong Government have historically always played down our investment, I believe quite wrongly.
  I do not believe that people from Hong Kong will come here to stay. The hon. Member for Warley, East referred

  1615
  to a recent poll that showed that of those Hong Kong citizens who wanted to leave, 4 per cent. wanted to come to Britain, as opposed to 37 per cent. who wanted to go to Canada. I believe that people from Hong Kong may well use us as a staging post.
  We must ask the Government tonight to tell us more about what other countries are doing in that respect. I agree that we have a British responsibility. However, the issue may become a great international problem. Apart from Singapore and France, which will take a handful, and a few other countries that will take a handful, what countries will help in what might become a serious problem?
  The package is flawed, and it can give hon. Members no pleasure. All political parties are in a false position, and we can derive no pleasure from having to debate the Bill today. However, having thought about the issue with much care, I believe that it is worth buying the breathing space that I believe the package will bring. I do not believe that it will lead to large-scale permanent immigration to the United Kingdom, and I believe that those fears have been greatly exaggerated.
  The Bill will need amending in Committee or on Report. It is full of holes and that is inevitable in a package of this kind. However, on balance I believe that the House would be wise to accept the Bill. If it does not, the disillusionment in Hong Kong and the skills outflow in the early stages could lead to a situation which might be more serious than it is now in Hong Kong, and one which the House and the people of Hong Kong will come to regret.
  7.44 pm
  Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is right. The future of Hong Kong will be decided, whether we like it or not, in Peking. How we handle China over the next seven crucial years will be of the utmost importance.
  I believe that the Foreign Secretary was right to pursue democratisation as far as he did and to accept at this stage that there was no further give in the Chinese position. I do not believe that that necessarily excludes a rather larger number for direct elections in 1995. We should pursue the argument for further democracy.
  The Foreign Secretary was right to refuse to accept Chinese statements criticising the granting of passports to a select group of people in Hong Kong. Anyone who has had any passing involvement in Hong Kong, let alone anyone who has held office as Foreign Secretary, knows how delicate is the governance of Hong Kong. That is a quite exceptional colonial responsibility in which confidence is everything. Confidence can disappear literally in a matter of hours.
  In the negotiations for the agreement, I think at the ninth meeting, the failure to reach an agreed statement between the British and Chinese negotiators, and their refusal to accept the word "constructive", caused a run on the Hong Kong dollar and a serious lack of confidence. The situation is that fragile. If the House was to vote against the Bill tonight, there is no doubt that the run on the dollar overnight—as we now have 24-hour exchanges—would be devastating. Therefore, we must watch everything that we say and do.
  1616
  I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has returned to the Chamber. From time to time I have some affection for the right hon. Gentleman. But, to put it bluntly, his actions over the past few months have had a devastating effect in Hong Kong. If he seeks the highest office in this country—to be Prime Minister—and he cannot understand the damage that he has caused over the past few months, his chances of ever holding that office have been considerably damaged.
  The chances of our carrying through the next seven years to a successful transition to China are uncertain and no one can be sure whether we will succeed. However, we must do all in our power to achieve that end. As we are losing key personnel from Hong Kong daily, we must be selective. We must try to help those people who contribute so crucially to the success of Hong Kong as it is at the moment.
  If we manage to staunch the flow of those key people, the prosperity for the millions of people in Hong Kong will be enhanced. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) must consider my argument. If we can get it right for the few, we will get it right for the many. However, we will not succeed unless our actions carry conviction in Peking.
  That is why I believe that the Prime Minister was absolutely right to talk to and have dinner with the Chinese ambassador. He understands the delicacy of the question and it is important to keep a dialogue going with the Chinese at all costs even when we disagree with them. The Chinese do not mind people who disagree with them. They would prefer open and honest dealing and in the past they have kept all their treaties. There is still a chance of a highly successful transition despite the horror of Tiananmen square.
  The events in Tiananmen square proved the right hon. Member for Chingford wrong. It is no good quoting manifestos from 1979, 1983 and 1987. Those have been completely blown apart by what happened in Tiananmen square. No one likes waves of immigration. I am sure that no Conservative Member under their Government liked accepting the 28,000 Ugandan Asians. We all lived through the traumas of the Kenyan Asians in 1968 and the question of restricting Commonwealth immigration in the early 1960s.
  It is a delicate and difficult issue. Many hon. Members would like to be more generous about immigration than we know would be acceptable in the country. That is the reality with which we have been grappling in these delicate years.
  For us not to respond to a traumatic event such as occurred in Tiananmen square would be dishonourable. That is the argument against those manifestos. Let us assume that those statements were given in good faith. Nevertheless, the statement about "swamping" before the 1979 general election is one reason why the official Labour party is not abstaining tonight, but is voting against the Bill. That statement has caused deep and continuing resentment.
  However, we must put such resentments behind us because we are dealing with the position in Hong Kong now. I share much of the criticism that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook deployed against current immigration policy. There is no doubt that there should be more generosity towards the relatives of immigrants who have already been accepted into full citizenship of this country. It is a scandal that we are not more generous, but

  1617
  that is no reason for voting against the legislation. Although it is a fair debating point, it is no reason to cause problems in Hong Kong.
  At this stage, we need to bolster the confidence of the key people in Hong Kong because if they stay, in a year or two years' time, there will be the chance of achieving a better atmosphere in Peking. Just as Tiananmen square was traumatic for us and for Hong Kong, we must accept that it was also traumatic in Peking. The atmosphere there is delicate. However, I believe that we shall find a more responsive attitude in two or three years' time and that the Chinese Government will accept as a fait accompli the decision that we have taken on passports. There is a chance that we shall see greater democratisation, but in the meantime the next few months are crucial.
  If we are to gain support from the international community, Britain has to show the lead. It is no use asking other countries to give extra passports to the Hong Kong citizens who work in their national firms. They will not be generous if they see the House of Commons rejecting this Bill. If that is the case, we can forget all about expecting generosity from others. If we are to urge other countries to be more involved and if we are to pave the way for possible greater international response if something went wrong, we must show that we are ready to take our burden and our share.
  It is in that spirit that the Social Democratic party will vote for the legislation. We shall vote against the Bill's Committee stage being taken on the Floor of the House because we believe that that is purely and simply a delaying tactic. What is more, we shall vote for the Bill on Third Reading.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. John Maples: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has focused the attention of the House on the central issue of this debate—the stability and the future stability of Hong Kong. The issue of this debate is not which Hong Kong citizens have the best claim to live in the United Kingdom; it is how we exercise and discharge our responsibility for the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We are faced with a serious exodus of skilled people from Hong Kong which threatens its stability. I do not know whether our responsibility to do something about that is moral, historic or practical, but we clearly have a responsibility. It is set out in paragraph 4 of the joint declaration, which states that we have a
  "responsibility to maintain the continuing prosperity and stability"
  of Hong Kong until the middle of 1997.
  Apart from the fact that we have that responsibility, we must remember that we have extensive commercial interests in Hong Kong, not only before 1997 but—we hope—afterwards which it is in our interests to protect. China has similar extensive commercial interests. The fact that China has not exercised its practical power to take back Hong Kong in the past 40 years can be related to those extensive commercial interests, and China, too, has obligations. It has the same obligations under the joint declaration.
  In such debates, we often lose sight of the fact that the purpose of China's policy is not only to get Hong Kong and Macau back into the Chinese fold—its main target is Taiwan. In the not-too-distant future, China wants to be able to do a similar deal with Taiwan and to bring it back
  1618
  into a greater China. To do so, China must be able to show the people of Taiwan the successful arrangements that it has made to work in Hong Kong. Therefore, it is in China's interests to honour its agreements and to ensure that it inherits and maintains a prosperous and stable Hong Kong.
  If we accept that we have an obligation to do something to maintain Hong Kong's stability, the question is, what should we do? I do not believe that it is practical to consider admitting to the United Kingdom either the 3·3 million United Kingdom passport holders or the 5·7 million people who live in Hong Kong. To put it in practical terms, it would amount to 8,000 people per constituency, although those people would not be distributed averagely across the country. That is not a practical proposition and to hold it out as such is irresponsible.
  However, we must do something. We cannot simply wash our hands of this and say that we are not prepared to grant any passports. We cannot simply let history take its course. We must do something and that necessairily involves a compromise. I do not know whether the right number is 40,000 or 60,000, but 50,000 seems reasonable. If the worst came to the worst, that would not be an impossible number of people to admit to the United Kingdom. On the whole, they would tend to be extremely useful people. The number is probably sufficient to give the boost to Hong Kong that we want to give.
  If we accept that we are to grant a number of passports under 5·7 million, there must be an allocation system which will necessarily be unsatisfactory. If we focus our attention on our purpose of stabilising what is happening in Hong Kong, we must grant those passports to the people whose continued presence in Hong Kong is likely to help to enhance that stability. If we do so, we shall discharge our responsibility in a way that is ultimately seen not as divisive, but as positive. It would give such people an insurance policy.
  To those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who say that that insurance policy will not work, I simply say that it is what thousands of Hong Kong citizens have been seeking and acquiring for themselves over the past 10 or 20 years. They have been going to Canada, Australia and the United States, fulfilling their residency requirements, acquiring foreign passports and returning to Hong Kong. We are simply offering to make that facility—that insurance policy—available to them without the need to leave Hong Kong for two or three years.
  The opposition to the Government's proposal has fallen into three categories. The Social and Liberal Democrats have taken the principled but thoroughly impractical position that everybody should be admitted. The Labour party has not only been impractical, but thoroughly unprincipled. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has got his party into a box of all or none. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), was not very successful in trying to wriggle out of that box today. The right hon. Member for Gorton has consistently opposed every proposal and whenever the Government have brought this proposal to the House for discussion, he has disparaged and denigrated it, but he has never offered an alternative. He must know that if there were a Labour Government—I am sure that this is recognised by many Opposition Members—they would have to do something similar to what the Government propose. The right hon.

  1619
  Member for Gorton has sunk to a new low—even for him—in his cynical and opportunistic exploitation of these events for party political advantage, dangerously regardless of the international consequences. If we ever needed further evidence of how totally unfit he is to be a British Foreign Secretary, we have had it in his contributions to this problem.
  The more interesting opposition has come from my right hon. and hon. Friends. They circulated a letter to all my right hon. and hon. Friends in which they set out their concerns about the Government's proposal. Basically, they said that they were worried about the future of Hong Kong, but they must realise that the people of Hong Kong want this proposal. They do not regard it as too much—if anything, they regard it as far too little. It is not for us to second-guess what is in their best interests. If they want the provisions, it is not for us to say that they are not good for them.
  The second point made by my right hon. and hon. Friends is that China will deny its citizenship to United Kingdom passport holders. Although that is what China is saying, I think that it is extremely unlikely that it will do that. The people to whom we will have granted passports will, in the main, be exactly the people whom the People's Republic of China wants and needs to remain in Hong Kong after 1997. Even if that is not the case, those in Hong Kong who have acquired British passports will have a choice between Chinese and British nationality. Even if they chose to retain their British nationality, under the terms of the joint declaration they would continue to have the right to reside in Hong Kong. Again, we should leave that choice to them. It is not for us to make such a choice on their behalf.
  The third and perhaps the most serious reservation of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that China will see the provisions as a deliberate attempt to undermine the joint declaration and the stability of Hong Kong. That might be what China is saying, but I cannot believe that that is how China genuinely sees it. Both China and the United Kingdom have an obligation under the joint declaration.
  Clearly we are trying to enhance stability, not to undermine it. It is so much in our interests and in the interests of China to maintain stability that I cannot believe that the Chinese will interpret the Bill as undermining the joint declaration. The Chinese have such enormous, overriding interests in the future prosperity of Hong Kong that I do not believe they will see the Bill as undermining our obligations to the future of Hong Kong.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends were a little disingenuous in their letter. Their real anxiety—which is a legitimate one—was that the Bill might be seen as a breach of United Kingdom immigration policy. But they must face the fact that this is a unique situation. It is not an immigration problem but a unique colonial inheritance which cannot be solved by granting independence. The problem has been exacerbated in the past year by events in Tiananmen square. We cannot ignore that. People in the United Kingdom will see Hong Kong as a unique case for which we have some responsibility. If that involves one-off granting of British passports to people in Hong Kong, they will accept it as the price that we must pay for that obligation.
  1620
  My hon. Friends are wrong not only about the reaction of people in the United Kingdom but about that of the Chinese Government. I ask both Conservative and Opposition Members who may be thinking seriously of voting against the Bill to reflect on the consequences outside if the Bill is rejected. In Hong Kong it will be seen as a betrayal and there will be a far greater and accelerated exodus of skilled and valuable people from Hong Kong in the immediate future. That will undermine stability to an extent that we have not yet even contemplated. There will be serious consequences not only for our future commercial interests in the far east but the intervening period of British administration of Hong Kong will be made extremely difficult, if not impossible.
  Rejection of the Bill tonight will be seen in China as a sign of immense weakness. It will weaken our negotiating position with the People's Republic of China in a devastating way. It will feel that it has the measure of us. In the world at large rejection of the Bill will be seen as Britain failing to honour its clear obligations.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Jim Sillars: On the issue of Hong Kong, we face a problem because of past conduct, attitudes and judgments and neither the Tory nor Labour Front Benches have anything to be proud of. That was demonstrated in the debate this afternoon. If one reads the debates in the House from 1984 until just before Tiananmen square, what strikes an objective person—I can claim to be objective because I was not present—is the combination of naivety and stupidity on the part of both Front Benches. A self-satisfaction ran through all the debates about how well the negotiations with the People's Republic of China were handled and how everything in the garden of Hong Kong and China would be lovely. We are now paying the price for that lack of judgment.
  There has also been a failure of nerve on the part of both Front Benches, on the moral issues. I was remarkably surprised to hear the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), argue earlier that morality and international politics did not run hand in hand. I concede that a great deal of practice in human history might demonstrate that, but the essence of the argument for democracy is built on morality. It is morality that says that individually we grant other people, every man and woman, the right to be wrong, as we see it. That is a moral judgment that has been built up into democratic societies in western Europe and other places.
  I listened carefully to the arguments about the need for more democracy in Hong Kong. I argued for that many a long year ago, before I came to the House in 1970 and during the 1970s. We have left it a bit late. Democracy is not just about one man, one vote, but about building up democratic institutions capable of taking the stresses and strains of political debates. It is the creation of political classes, if one likes to put it that way, which can deal with each other in a civilised way and contain all the passions within a society without allowing them to overspill into violence. I am afraid that we have left Hong Kong too few years to build up democratic institutions. The Government's proposals will not fulfil our responsibilities to create democracy there.
  There is another point of shame for the Labour Front Bench, particularly the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I was utterly

  1621
  appalled to hear him engage in divide and rule tactics between immigrant communities. I never thought that I would hear that from him. He asked why people from the Indian subcontinent should and themselves in difficulty because people from Hong Kong had been allowed in. His premise was not sound. Dependants and others from the Indian subcontinent who are waiting to come to Britain and people in Hong Kong have one thing in common. They both have a relationship with this state because of the colonial past of the United Kingdom. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not recognise that.
  I wish to put on record in the time available to me the joint Scottish National party-Plaid Cymru position. The House of Commons has a responsibility for the status of the Hong Kong Chinese. The House has the power to exercise that responsibility. We know to what type of regime we are prepared to hand over those people. When I was in Hong Kong earlier this year—I have no interest to declare because I paid my own way—I read in one of the newspapers a statement by the person who is supposed to be the head of the Supreme Court in the People's Republic of China. He said that the word of the Communist party was above the law. If I were in Hong Kong without a passport and a means of escape, I should be extremely nervous.
  For generations the House has brayed about morality. I remember the first time that I went to Hong Kong as a young service man, when there was a great outpouring of refugees from mainland China into Hong Kong. I read in the newspapers and was told in current affairs sessions held in our Army unit that we were there to defend democracy, freedom and the free world. Morality mattered very much in those days. There has been a great deal of preaching about morality but the present package offered by the Government and what the Labour party offers demonstrate that moral words have not been met by moral deeds.
  Our position is exactly the same as that of the Liberal Democrats. We believe that all people in Hong Kong with a claim to British citizenship should be granted British passports and the right of abode. The SNP and Plaid Cymru also deplore the racist basis of the denial of passports to 3·25 million of the 3·28 million Hong Kong Chinese.
  In other debates I have heard hon. Members argue that we cannot give millions of people a passport and an open-ended commitment to allow them to come to Britain at some time in the future. We have been told that it is impracticable. But what about the 1 million people in South Africa who have passports and the right to come here at some indeterminate point in the future, or the 8 million or 9 million people in north America and the old Commonwealth countries of Australia and New Zealand? They have the right to come here at any time in the future, yet no one seems to be terribly worried about that. Of course, they have white skins and that is what makes the difference. If Chinese people in Hong Kong were regarded, to use the racist term, as "our kith and kin" we should have a different Bill before us and different speeches would have been made from both the Front and Back Benches. I regard the Hong Kong Chinese as intellectual, political and human kith and kin as much as any white South African with a passport.
  1622
  The Bill is not the best one that could be brought before the House. It does not match the need for justice, as several other hon. Members have said. It has been cobbled together as an expedient to meet a crisis.
  We shall support the Bill because it does two things in principle, although perhaps inadvertently. First, it is an open acknowledgement of our collective ability to meet our collective responsibility in the House of Commons. Secondly, it breaches the Government's previous argument that we cannot give passports to people in Hong Kong and expect them to stay there. That was the argument, yet it is precisely the opposite argument that the Government are putting now.
  No one knows what the position will be on mainland China between 1990 and 1997. If China again demonstrates a willingness to kill people and suppress democratic movements, we have in the Bill markers on which later we can state the case for everyone who is entitled to receive a passport and the right of abode.
  Given the political difficulties of the Conservative Government, it is tempting to use the Bill further to upset the Government, but the SNP and Plaid Cymru will not lend ourselves to that. The Bill deals with human beings and they are far more important than tactics in the United Kingdom's internal politics. We should like to offer a rescue and insurance package to all the 3·28 million Hong Kong Chinese, but it is not in our power to do so. Tonight we have an opportunity to do that for 225,000 of them and we shall vote to do so.
  8.11 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). I do not agree with him. It is a question of the right to be wrong. Either he is or I am. It was also a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples).
  I was in the East Indies fleet when Hong Kong was reoccupied in 1945, so my memories of the area go back a long way. I wish to deal with two sides of the issue: first, the effects on China and Hong Kong and, secondly, the effect on the United Kingdom if the Bill is enacted.
  Hong Kong is part of China. In 1984, we signed a treaty for its return, as we had neither the naval, military nor economic strength, nor the wish, to retain it. Its future lies entirely with China. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that our relationship with China is vital to its future. The 1984 treaty changed the whole position. The future of Hong Kong now depends solely on Peking. Whether it survives or dies depends on the relationships of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom with China. That important point must always be remembered.
  I am a layman and we in the House are generalists. Indeed, our strength is that we are generalists and representatives of the people. I believe that we have irritated China on two issues. It is interesting that Taiwan is not offering to take people from Hong Kong. People in Taiwan to whom I have spoken believe that China's stand on passports and democracy in Hong Kong is right, and the Taiwanese better than the British Foreign Office should know the Peking Government's attitude.
  We were in Hong Kong for a long time, yet we did little for democracy. It was ruled as a colony and the governor had the power. Suddenly we are in a hurry. It may not be

  1623
  a legal breach of the 1944 treaty, but if I were Chinese I would consider it an odd moral breach that we should expedite democracy when in a few years time Hong Kong is to return to China. I know that it is a question of one country, two systems, but whether it is capitalism against socialism or also democracy against some form of totalitarianism has never been properly worked out.
  The Bill will enable us to give 50,000 passports to 250,000 people who will then come under a foreign power, Britain. Knowing the historical attitude of China to people from the west, that is the silliest step that we have ever taken. I do not put it more strongly than that. It has irritated the Chinese. They do not believe in dual nationality. As far as I know, the Foreign Office would not employ people of dual nationality. I may be wrong, but we have positive vetting in sensitive areas. Those people with British passports would probably be in charge of sensitive areas, so it is inevitable that they will be dismissed at the beginning in 1997 for being servants of a foreign power.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is nice to have the agreement of my hon. Friend. I feel more certain in my views now, having carried at least one hon. Friend with me.
  The whole question of the 50,000 passports is suspect.
  We must work with Peking; otherwise, there will be no future for the people of Hong Kong—not just the 250,000 whom we have selected—the bureaucrats and those who have made money—but for anybody. What belief can the Chinese Government have in the pledges of a British Government who have reneged on their pledge to the people who elected them that there will be no more large-scale immigration? Only rarely do I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, but he rightly argued that we must look into the Chinese mind and see what we can do there. If one breaches a pledge to one's own people, how can anyone believe that one will keep a pledge to other people?
  There was no consultation on the Bill, not even with the Conservative party. We on the Back Benches were landed with it. There was no democracy about it. There was about as much democracy as there is in Hong Kong. I do not say that unpleasantly, but I put it on the record to cheer everybody up. We wonder what will happen next.
  Hon. Members have referred to the immigrant community in the United Kingdom. Obviously, the Bill affects them. At some time, people will say that we have enough immigrants. We may agree that there should be 100,000 or whatever, but at some stage there must be a bar. Everybody, and certainly the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has dodged the question of numbers.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I must not give way. I have only five minutes and today I shall finish in time. Last time, I was cut off even before my peroration. Not that I need one, but I intend to make one this evening.
  I have probably more constituents from immigrant stock than any other Conservative Member. I am continually trying to get in relatives of people who live here and who should be here. My priority is to look after my people first. They are here. One case of a couple will show
  1624
  how bad it is. The grandfather of the wife was a brigadier in the imperial British Army. Her father was a group captain in the Indian air force and provided great defence contracts to this country. The father of the husband was an inspector in the imperial police when we ruled India and won 40 commendations for gallantry. His only child is here.
  The couple have two children, one of whom needs constant attention, for which they pay. They want the wife's parents to come to this country. They can live on their pension. It will cost the United Kingdom nothing. They will not breed at that age, unless there is a great miracle. Nobody can have any objections. For 18 months, I have been trying to help those people to immigrate, but I still cannot get them in. There is no way that I can defend the Bill when I have to deal with such matters in my constituency. That has to do with the Bill, and those of us involved in such cases know that it does.
  My Chinese community do not want the Bill. They tell me that they came here because they wanted to, not because they were running away.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes. It was a positive decision.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her agreement. I am undoubtedly carrying the House with me this evening.
  What happened elsewhere at the end of the British empire? We often handed peoples over to one-party dictatorships. Did we provide passports then? Some funny things have happened in some of those countries. Did we help? Thank goodness we helped the Ugandan Asians, and in Kenya, but in some of the others, no help was given. The provision of passports has been highly selective.
  At the beginning, I would take in all those who have served in Her Majesty's forces and their widows. I would start from there. I would say no more than that at present. I am sorry to say this with the Foreign Secretary present—we served together in Northern Ireland—but it is a matter of personal integrity and I must say that Foreign Office policy on China has been wrong and has irritated China. It should be changed to working with China, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. He will not thank me for continually quoting him. He may think that he is in bad company, but I will do so again. He said that we must get on with the Chinese. We must get it right.
  If the Bill is enacted, it will further damage our relationship with China. My sympathies lie with China on this matter. It will do nothing for my people who want their families united now. I do not want to hear promises of other people coming here and worrying about where they will end up. Sad as it may be, I shall have to vote against the Bill's Second Reading.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Tonight, we have witnessed a number of attempts at sophisticated racism, especially in the speeches of Conservative Members. It is a measure of Opposition Members' hostility to the Bill that those Conservatives have been forced to try to hide their racism in sophistry. One such attempt was made by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who talked about the Hong Kong Chinese queue-jumping. It is disgraceful that someone who was directly responsible for

  1625
  keeping black and minority ethnic people from joining their families in this country should now cry crocodile tears about those people having to wait while the Hong Kong Chinese queue-jump. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) also referred to this matter.
  Hong Kong Chinese are already in the queue to get into this country because they have been caught up by the racist immigration legislation now in force. It is absolutely wrong to argue that black and ethnic minority people whose relatives or friends are waiting in queues in Karachi, Jamaica or wherever object to Hong Kong Chinese coming here. The people to whom I have spoken understand the circumstances now facing the Hong Kong Chinese.
  It is important to understand how this Bill has come about. Partly it is a result of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, followed by the British Nationality Act 1981 which changed the status of Hong Kong citizens, who then became citizens of the British dependent territories. The citizens of a number of other colonies, for example Gibraltar, the Falklands and Montserrat, also had their status changed. Since that time the British Government have given full citizenship rights of entry and abode to the people of Gibraltar and the Falklands, but those rights have been denied to the citizens of Hong Kong purely on the basis of colour, although the Government will try to argue the numbers game.
  The best thing I can do is to quote from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants whose 1985 report states:
  "The barrier to acceptance of a residual moral responsibility for people who have lived under British rule, and whose future has been negotiated over their heads is the same barrier which has for twenty years obstructed justice and morality in British nationality and immigration law: the fear of non-white immigration to Britain. It is not merely a question of numbers, but of colour. Millions of other people from overseas have an absolute right to enter Britain: between three and nine million Commonwealth citizens, from Australia, Canada and New Zealand; over 200 million nationals of EC countries; about a million white South Africans. Almost all the people concerned are white; their right to enter Britain is unquestioned and does not lead to any public fears of being 'swamped' by immigrants."
  The Bill demonstrates what it is all about.
  I contrast the behaviour of the British Government with the way in which Portugal has acknowledged its responsibilities to its territory of Macau, which is also due to be handed back to China in 1999. The people of that territory have been granted full Portuguese citizenship rights, including the right to live and work in Britain after 1992. Unlike Britain, Portugal has recognised its responsibilities towards its colony.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) tried to make out that Britain has no moral responsibility for the citizens of Hong Kong. I was a citizen of a previous British colony and I can tell the House what a colony is all about—possibly I am unique in the House in that respect. If one lives in a British colony, one must learn English and follow British traditions. Britain tries to mollycoddle such colonies and tries to engender a parent-child relationship with them. Because of that, and because it has exploited it economically, Britain has a clear moral responsibility to Hong Kong. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that Britain has given a lot of money to Hong Kong, but I assure the House that it has taken a lot more out.
  1626
  As a colonising power, Britain took on the responsibility for protecting the citizens of Hong Kong. It has a responsibility for their internal and external security and that is why there is a governor of Hong Kong. It is an absolute disgrace that Britain can just relinquish such responsibilities on a whim. The British attitude appears to be, "We do not mind what happens to the rest; we shall take just a few."
  Britain is further culpable because of its failure to honour its commitment to ensure at least a measure of democracy in Hong Kong before 1997. In Macau, the people can vote in the Portuguese presidential elections and for two seats in the Portuguese assembly. Britain has no such arrangements.
  A number of my colleagues and I have discussed the draft Basic Law and people have expressed their concern about human rights. We were teasing such things out until 4 June and the tragic events in Tiananmen square. Those events caused panic among the people of Hong Kong and they turned to Britain, the mother country—the protector of those people—for support. What they got from the Government was this Bill saying that, with a bit of luck, a quarter of a million people can come here if they pass I he test.
  It is important to consider the test that the Government have set. The points system is a disgrace. If one is aged between 30 and 50 and one passes the other criteria, one is allowed to come to Britain. However, if one is under 30 or over 50 one does not receive the 50 points necessary. Therefore, people over 50 will automatically leave Hong Kong by other ways. I do not understand how the Government can say that the Bill is intended to keep people in Hong Kong.
  Fifty points are awarded under the proposed points system if one is proficient in English. If the Bill is designed to keep people in Hong Kong, surely one should get points for proficiency in Chinese.
  Hong Kong needs to establish the ability to govern itself. The position in Hong Kong demands that the Bill of Rights which the former Foreign Secretary promised to the people of that territory be enacted soon. Secondly, there should be rapid progress towards democratic Government, directly elected by the people of Hong Kong. Thirdly, all British passport holders in Hong Kong should have restored to them full rights of citizenship, including the right of entry and abode in the United Kingdom. The British Government should accept their responsibility for all the people who are legally and lawfully resident in Hong Kong.
  I intend to abstain from voting on the Bill. I agree with my Front-Bench spokesmen that the Bill is elitist and that the method of selection is bad. I must, however, support the principle of allowing people to come to this country. I am not prepared to go into the same Lobby, however, as the right hon. Member for Chingford on this or any other issue to do with race. For those reasons I shall abstain in the main vote and support my hon. Friends' motion that the Bill should be discussed in a Committee of the whole House.
  8.30 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I speak on this subject with some trepidation, because I know of the expertise of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. From the tone of today's debate, it would seem that there

  1627
  is general acceptance of our duty to do all in our power to ensure the stability of Hong Kong during its last years as a British colony and the lead-up to its time as a special administrative region of China in 1997. When I say "in our power", the House will recognise that this is limited, not least because China has essentially held all the cards in the lead-up to the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 and thereafter. However, our influence is still considerable and the measures before us today reflect that.
  When the Government announced the quota system for British passports for Hong Kong citizens, I was extremely sceptical of its merits. Well intentioned though it may have seemed, I thought that it was arbitrary, apparently flew in the face of our manifesto commitments on immigration and was potentially invidious in its application. It was with those preconceptions that I went to see the position for myself, in an unsponsored visit to Hong Kong during the Christmas recess. The object of my visit was not only to see the territory but, more importantly, to see the problem within the context of China as a whole.
  I learnt a salutary lesson, because the Chinese authorities left me stranded for four days in north-west China. Perhaps that is the best possible reason to make a sponsored visit rather than an unsponsored one. However, it gave me a chance to see more of the real China. My visit took place during the imposition of martial law following the horrors of Tiananmen square. Perhaps at no other time has the contrast between the vibrant prosperity of Hong Kong and the depressing mood and relative poverty of China been so marked.
  For the first time, I recognised the justification for the sense of vulnerability and real fear of the Hong Kong Chinese, many of whose families had fled communism in the civil war. On the other hand, the People's Republic of China has been relatively pragmatic in its treatment of Hong Kong during the years. It has refused to recognise the cession of Hong Kong island and Kowloon or the lease of the New Territories, but it has tolerated an historical legacy. By doing so, it has benefited enormously from Hong Kong's economic links with the outside world. It is not only in its own interests but in those of Hong Kong and British business for the territory to remain stable.
  While we cannot predict the outcome of the unresolved power struggle in Peking, the lesson of recent history is that even hard liners from Mao Tsi-Tung onwards recognised that Hong Kong's special status was to everyone's mutual benefit, and that any interference—which was possible at any time—would be counter-productive. Even if we take the bleakest view of China's future—that if, in the absence of any history of democracy or any sizeable ethnic minorities that could break away, China were to remain the last bastion of communism in the world—there is little, if any, incentive for China totally to disrupt Hong Kong's unique way of life. However, while that possibility exists, it is for us to take what steps we can to stabilise the position, pending the reforms that we hope to see in Peking. I heartily endorse the comments from hon. Members on the importance of establishing and maintaining a civilised exchange of views with Peking.
  The Chinese have consistently argued that all Hong Kong inhabitants of Chinese race are their compatriots, and thus any granting of British passports could in itself be interpreted as provocative. Any force-fed process of
  1628
  democracy in that territory is even more provocative. Therefore, we are talking about compromise and how many passports must be issued to anchor the key people in Hong Kong. The general feeling seems to be that we have got the number about right. China's greatest incentive to respect Hong Kong's position is that Hong Kong continues to be its gateway to trade in the outside world.
  I went to Hong Kong and China as an agnostic. Many Conservative Members will continue to doubt the wisdom of my right hon. and learned Friend's policies, but having made the offer, the consequence of withdrawing it now would be catastrophic. There would be a crash of confidence in Hong Kong, and all our responsibilities towards the territory's inhabitants would be thrown out of the window. The combination of my right hon. and learned Friend's policies and the long-term interests of China in the region combine to give the best chance of solving this delicate issue in an honourable way.
  We have heard a great deal today of the Opposition's so-called policies, but they constitute unprincipled, empty opportunism. The Government's proposals should be supported on practical, political and moral grounds.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Had it not been for the events of 4 June in Tiananmen square, this debate would not be taking place. Therefore, it is necessary to measure the Bill against the necessities that arise from the events in Tiananmen square. The Bill is totally inadequate because if we consider whose human rights are most at risk as a result of Tiananmen square, it is not necessarily the business men, the people with skills and those who are being selected as a result of the Bill who have most to fear from the Chinese after 1997.
  What astounds me particularly about the Tory party is its willingness to appease Stalinism in China as it was never willing to appease Stalinism in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist period and afterwards. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a remarkable speech on that point. He made an apologetic speech for the Chinese regime.
  There will come a time, I hope in the not-too-distant future, when changes will take place in China as they are now taking place in eastern Europe. I do not want to be pointed at as one who refused to support the democrats when they had their backs to the wall in Tiananmen square and for the way in which they are now being dealt with by a Government who are willing to give way to the Chinese. The Bill appeases the Chinese Stalinists in Peking. It in no way seeks to protect the people who will be most at risk such as the students who led the way in demonstrating in Hong Kong their opposition to the Peking regime. Many of those who demonstrated in Hong Kong had fled from Stalinism in the years before 1989. Those who have most to fear are the students who, when I was at the terminus to the Star ferry last August, were collecting petitions full of signatures of people to support their counterparts in Peking. We must measure the Bill in terms of human rights and it totally fails to deal with that problem.
  The Labour party has put forward a belated argument for democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) rightly said, it has been neglected during the decades by successive Governments of both parties.

  1629
  However, it must be said that Hong Kong is a unique colony in that its population never sought independence, unlike, say, India or Cyprus. People did not form independence parties in Hong Kong when they became politically active. On the contrary, those who were politically active there took the side either of the Chinese Communist party or of the Kuomintang.
  Now we need to look at the rights of the people of Hong Kong. My right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions where the Labour party stands in respect of the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong. Long before 1997—indeed, by next year—they should be moving towards full democracy and a Legislative Council that is wholly elected by the people of Hong Kong. That is one way in which we can exert pressure on the Chinese Government.
  It is not, however, the only way. When Conservative Members argue that the Labour party proposes no alternative, they are wrong: there is another way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has spelt out other groups of people who should be considered for the right of abode in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made it clear on Radio 4 this morning that a Labour Government would act with the international community. Britain has its connections with the European Community and the Commonwealth—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Woolly.
  Mr. Wareing: It is not woolly. Most of the people who leave Hong Kong for western countries do not go to Britain, so there must be some accord with Canada, Australia and Singapore. Between 1981 and 1986 no fewer than 197,887 Hong Kong people went to western countries, of whom only 9,257 came to the United Kingdom—just 4·79 per cent. Quite apart from their natural dislike of Thatcherite Britain, we do not exactly have the cultural atmosphere to attract many people from Hong Kong.
  It is ludicrous to say that handing out passports more liberally to the people whom it is the responsibility of the British Government to protect would result in an invasion of 6 million people. To bring pressure to bear on the Peking regime we need an international conference to discuss the problem of the colony.
  It is a peculiar argument, advanced by the Government, that we must prevent people with skills from leaving Hong Kong since Hong Kong's economy demands that skills remain there—we do not want a run on the Hong Kong dollar, or people fleeing from the colony. So it is strange that the only 50,000 people to be offered the right of abode in the United Kingdom will be precisely those with the skills. Hong Kong does not have an abundance of skills. The plastic mould and dye industry of Hong Kong is desperate for more skilled workers; it is an industry that is basic to everything else—toys, electronics and so on—and it is suffering.
  There is much opposition in Hong Kong to the attitude of the Singapore Government, who have offered access to Singapore to 25,000 Hong Kong people over the next five years, because the sort of people whom they are taking are not the sort who will suffer because of their political views
  1630
  —dissent from Peking over Tiananmen square, for instance—but the sort who have skills and who can help the Singapore economy.
  Not only is this legislation appeasement of the Stalinists in Peking, but it is hasty legislation that should have been brought before the House only after full discussion with our international partners. Even under a Tory Government the Canadians have been far more generous and imaginative than this Government have ever been under this Prime Minister.
  Despite the fact that I dislike the attitude of some of the Conservative Members whom I shall be joining in the Lobby tonight, I have no compunction in saying that this is a thoroughly bad Bill that I cannot support.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. David Howell: I do not know whether being called at this late hour means that I am supposed to start winding up the debate from the Back Benches, but one theme that has clearly emerged from the debate, most of which I have sat through, is the widespread revulsion at the bizarre and opportunistic manoeuvring of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. Those of us who have tried to seek an all-party approach to the difficult problem of how to keep people in Hong Kong and prevent the collapse of the territory have been baffled by the stance of the official Opposition. How can they seriously argue that elitism applies to midwives, physiotherapists, or police or fire officials? To do so is to get the whole issue out of perspective. The position of the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen was devastatingly destroyed by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who made a fine and honest speech. There is no glory in the position adopted by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and it is sad to think that these are people who might one day seek to form a Government of this country.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are worried about the impact of the legislation. Of course if our immigration laws and our defences against further mass immigration were to be weakened by legislation, that would be a matter of grave concern and those who expressed such concern would deserve the fullest sympathies of the Government and of those of us who support the Bill. I should not support it if I felt that it opened the way to more mass immigration into this crowded country.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and some of his supporters have been kind enough to send a letter to Conservative Members. It was nice to get a letter from my right hon. Friend; I do not get many from him. In his polite letter he set out his fears and those of his colleagues, which fall into two categories. There are immediate worries, and there are longer-term worries—in both cases, that the Bill will not work.
  The immediate fears of my right hon. and hon. Friends, reiterated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), are that a group of people now somehow stuck in Hong Kong will be released by getting their hands on British passports and coming here. That is a travesty of the truth. In fact, thousands of people—key workers—are leaving Hong Kong in droves day after day, week after week. They are heading as fast as they can for Australia, Canada, the United States and even South Africa, with a consequent haemorrhage of talent. It is not a question of our provisions releasing those people

  1631
  and allowing them to escape—to use the misleading verbiage of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook; it is a case of enabling them to stay, because key workers of Hong Kong are moving out in enormous numbers and those numbers will increase.
  Almost everyone who can find a way through to an overseas passport is doing so—not only the living. I read that some of the dead are also being moved out of Hong Kong by their relatives: people's ashes are leaving the colony. When a licence has not been procured for the removal of the remnants of those who have died, they are taken aboard the nearest Boeing in carry-on luggage and transported overseas.
  The idea that people have been kept in the colony and that our provisions will release them is an inversion of the reality. The reality is that our provisions are the one thing that will ensure that those people stop going so fast. That is the thing that we must concentrate on and that is what we must watch to see whether the legislation achieves it. My understanding and my belief is that it will have a considerable effect in slowing down the present exodus of talent.
  There is also an argument that in the short term we cannot do anything because China is in a bloody-minded mood, that that is what undermines confidence, and that merely passing the legislation will not increase confidence.
  I agree that in the longer term China is the key to confidence, prosperity and stability in Hong Kong. But there are things that we can do in the shorter term and are seeking to do. We have made a move on the Vietnamese boat people and, as a result, we have the welcome news that the number of Vietnamese boat people is falling dramatically. We have made some moves on democracy. I happen to agree more with some Opposition Members than I do with my Government on that. The Select Committee had strong views about pushing the democracy issue as fast as possible. Every effort should be made to make the Chinese understand that a fast development of democracy is right. By 1995 we should certainly open up the issue again.
  Finally, we are seeking, through this measure, to keep in Hong Kong some of the key workers who otherwise are leaving at a great rate. That is what we are doing in the short term. The issue of them escaping and how many we allow into Britain, or what numbers will crowd into this or that part of the United Kingdom in the short term, simply does not arise. It is hard to find anyone in Hong Kong among those who now wish to emigrate who wants to come here anyway. I do not believe that they will. Anyway, that is not the purpose of the legislation. This is not an immigration issue in that sense, and viewing it through that lens has led the Opposition into their miserable and ill-supported stance on the matter.
  As for the long term, those of my hon. Friends who are doubtful say that after 1997, or even before, everyone who has one of the passports will come to Britain because the Chinese will take a hostile attitude to foreign passport holders and see them off. I must tell those who have doubts that if by 1997 or before there is still hostility and extreme surliness about Hong Kong in Peking, regarding it as a centre of subversion, it will be not 225,000 people coming, but 3,225,000, or indeed even 5 million people, all of whom will regard the United Kingdom as a place of asylum.
  1632
  Under the United Nations refugee convention of 1951 we are pledged to provide asylum to genuine political refugees. That is the nightmare that lies behind the undermining of confidence now. That is why we must work night and day to reassure Hong Kong now in the convalescent years of the early 1990s, to see that somehow we avoid that horrific prospect.
  I do not agree with those who say that the Chinese do not really understand these things. They understand them very well indeed. They understand that there is a case for people having a passport as a form of reassurance. A senior Chinese Minister told the Select Committee when we visited Peking before Tiananmen square that he understood quite clearly, because in China there was a saying that a clever rabbit has two boltholes. The Chinese had no difficulty in understanding exactly what is intended. I know that since then they have taken a rather more hostile tone, but they understand the position exactly.
  I should have liked to see a right of entry or right of abode being given, not passports. But tat perfectly sensible idea was yet one more thing dished by the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his colleagues who said that they would reverse anything of that kind that was put forward. That is why the Government had to go for passports.
  We shall need much greater and more vigorous international efforts than we have seen so far to get others to combine in the reassurance process over the next few years. The operation will need to be monitored by the House. I am not offering or volunteering, but the Select Committee might have a part to play in seeing how policy develops in Hong Kong over the next few years.
  I must tell Opposition Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends who see the issue in the narrow terms of apparent great influxes of immigrants that that is not the prospect. The question is whether we can get Hong Kong through the immediate difficult years that lie ahead. The Bill will not solve everything by any means. But it is a litmus test of whether we are a nation that understands the wider world or whether we have turned in on ourselves in a pititful mood of short-termism and parochialism. I know where I stand on that issue.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The House will not turn its back on the residents of Hong Kong or relax its continuing concern and commitments to their welfare. The question is how that is best achieved. It was always known that Hong Kong would not obtain independence like other colonies. We cannot escape, or wish away, the facts of the geography or history of Hong Kong. One of the central realities is that the lease runs out in 1997. The position in international law is clear.
  We cannot tow the colony away, nor is it remotely realistic, as some have suggested, to imagine that we can transport the population of some 6 million halfway round the globe and put them in Surrey, Sussex, Somerset or our inner cities. A moment's reflection shows how unbalanced and inappropriate such a proposition is from every point of view.
  The essential truth is that the future of Hong Kong cannot possibly be separated from that of China. It is the

  1633
  relationship with China that is all-important, and it is that which we have to get right and on which we should concentrate.
  In December 1984, Britain negotiated the joint declaration with the People's Republic. It was a first-class agreement. It allowed basically for one country but two systems. Hong Kong is to be allowed to keep its social system and economy and considerable autonomy for at least 50 years. Remembering that the alternative to the agreement with China is no agreement, merely the expiry of the lease and the reversion of sovereignty, it was a satisfactory and beneficial agreement.
  The joint declaration is a solemn international agreement registered at the United Nations. The Chinese and British Governments have entered into commitments and obligations under the joint declaration, and the Chinese have recently reaffirmed them. The terms of that agreement should be strictly adhered to by both sides. We should do nothing to damage, threaten or jeopardise the agreement. Its implementation is by far the best prospect for the future.
  But then came Tiananmen square, the bloodshed and the brutal suppression of the demonstration a year ago. There was, rightly, worldwide revulsion and condemnation, especially in Hong Kong. Everyone was appalled. But are we to say that what happened in Tiananmen square is somehow China's last word for all time? Are we to say that that will be an inevitable regular occurrence; that in all perpetuity the Chinese army will regularly attack its own people; and that in 1997 the Chinese army will march into Hong Kong and massacre everyone? Should we expect that to be the most likely prospect, so that the agreement is now worthless?
  In considering that, the events in eastern Europe should encourage us. We all remember the tanks on the streets of East Berlin, Budapest and Prague. Yet we have now seen genuinely free multi-party elections and the blossoming of freedom and democracy. Why assume, almost as an act of wish fulfilment, a worst-case scenario? Why forecast Armageddon in China?
  We know that even last year there were different views in China, even at the highest level, on what to do about the demonstration in the square. It would be mistaken to believe that there are no sane voices. One thing is certain: the geriatrics who ordered the bloodshed will not be around much longer. There have been many upheavals and much turmoil in China over the past 40 years which have baffled outsiders—the great leap forward, the cultural revolution and the changes in leadership. However, I think I am right in saying that throughout that period China has kept to its international agreements. No hon. Member knows what the position will be in seven years' time. Why should we assume that it will be worse rather than better?
  The Basic Law, for the mini-constitution passed on 4 April in Peking, set out the rights for Hong Kong citizens after 1997. It said that, after China resumes sovereignty over Hong Kong, it will nevertheless enjoy
  "a high degree of autonomy"
  as a "special administrative region" of China. It said that Hong Kong's capitalist system and "way of life" will remain unchanged for 50 years. It will have independent finances and its own tax system, keep its currency—the Hong Kong dollar—and remain a free port outside the Chinese customs area. While overall responsibility for defence and foreign affairs will rest with Peking, Hong
  1634
  Kong will be authorised to handle "relevant external affairs" on its own. All that was agreed last month. That is obviously the best way forward for Hong Kong. Everyone concerned should strive to see that it works, and not take steps that will jeopardise it.
  No one can prophesy what the world will look like in seven years' time, who the personalities in power in Peking will be or, for that matter, who they will be in London:, but there is no reason to suppose that the international agreement will not be adhered to. It will be in everyone's interests, including China's, to adhere to it.
  At this stage, it is the opposite of helpful for people to talk about Armageddon. Such a nightmare "end of the world" scenario would have to be dealt with not by this Parliament or the next, but by the Parliament after that. It would be the height of irresponsibility to start moving populations round the world now on a permanent, irrevocable basis because of transient factors or hypothetical future circumstances. I doubt whether those concerned or their offspring would have cause to thank us for that.
  What the Government propose in the Bill is a bizarre lottery with 50,000 British passports, catering for some 250,000 people, as prizes to be competed for under a grotesque points system. For example, anyone over the age of 51 would incur negative points; those who have laboured long in the British service would therefore be discriminated against. The majority would be from the private sector. For business men, the points would take account of earnings
  "as a measure of success and value to Hong Kong."
  For ordinary residents there is nothing. Those passports would obviously be highly prized and much sought after in an unseemly scramble in which there would be winners and losers, and many disappointed people.
  Donald Tsang, the Hong Kong director of administration, says that 750,000—15 times the number of passports—will apply, and that most will be disappointed. As a neat Thatcherite touch, all applicants will be charged a fee, whether they are successful or not. All that is supposed to bring confidence to Hong Kong. How does it give confidence to those on the lower deck to tell them that it is necessary to give out lifebelts, but only to a few of the chosen on the bridge? This move will encourage everyone to think that they should have a passport; lack of confidence is thereby engendered as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  As for the inane idea that giving passports will stop people leaving or using them, why in that case not give them to everyone? There was no consultation with the Chinese, who have said that they will not recognise them, or dual nationality. The passports cannot be used to enter or leave Hong Kong after 1997. Ownership of them will almost oblige their holders to leave before 1997; which is the opposite of what the Government say they intend.
  Let no one pretend that the Bill can do anything for confidence. It will be totally counter-productive. Andrew To, a student leader, said that it would not restore confidence. He said that he was against any scheme that tried to divide Chinese loyalties. Instead of precipitating and encouraging a mad rush for British passports to get out of Hong Kong, and thus destabilising the colony, the Government should work to reaffirm and make a success of the joint declaration, which gives Hong Kong a further 50 years of autonomy after 1997—much the best prospect for the future. If—although there is no evidence of it yet

  1635
  —things look as though they are likely to go badly wrong, it will be for a future Parliament to address the problem, and not for us foolishly and irresponsibly to precipitate it unnecessarily now.
  9.3 pm
  Sir John Stokes: In the few moments I have, I wish to speak briefly on the effects of the Bill on the British people. After 40 years of mass immigration, although considerable numbers are still coming in, people were beginning to think that at least primary immigration was over. People looked to the Conservative party to be stricter on immigration controls than any of the other parties. The Conservative party has promised to end mass immigration, but now we are talking of allowing up to 250,000 Chinese people in Hong Kong the right to come and live here, let alone their dependants and others who may follow them. It is no use the Government saying that only a proportion will exercise that right; that is far too much of a gamble for most people in an uncertain situation.
  Speaking against the Bill is an occasion for immense sadness for me, because it is the first time that I have ever differed from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on an important matter. My admiration for her is unbounded, and I am deeply sorry to find myself opposed to her when her great services to Britain are being forgotten and she is the subject of so much attack and vilification in the press and the media. She always has a close understanding of how the ordinary people in these islands think and feel, and I can only assume that she was charmed by some of the emissaries from Hong Kong and persuaded by her Cabinet colleagues to go against her own fundamental instincts.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, whom I admire, was originally opposed to the Bill. I was disappointed that his opening speech did not contain a single sentence about the effect of the Bill on the British people for whom he is ultimately responsible. That leaves my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. The position of Foreign Secretary is one of the greatest in the land and he has to defend our interests abroad and at home. In the last resort, even the humblest among us must look to the Foreign Secretary for protection. In this particularly difficult situation, it would appear that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has preferred to look after the interests of the Chinese people in Hong Kong rather than the interests of our people at home. I do not understand how my right hon. Friend can defend that judgment.
  What have the Hong Kong Chinese done to be given such special privileges over and above the rights and duties that the Foreign Secretary owes to ordinary English men and women who have never voted for immigration, who never liked it and who wish it to stop? They do not want or like a multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious society compared with the old wonderful social cohesion that we had in these islands which made our history so successful and unique. We are now facing the problems of that mixture in our small island. The Bill will reopen all those old wounds and produce a further loss of confidence in the Government when they are going through a difficult patch.
  1636
  Some will say that these immigrants are millionaires, cultured people and entrepreneurs. They may be marvellous people—I saw them in Hong Kong and there was much there that I admired—but they are still people of foreign extraction and we have too many of those here now. Therefore, I oppose the Bill with all the feeling that I can command. My entire political life has been to try to preserve all that is best in England. If I were not to oppose the Bill, I would be declaring all my political life to have been one long lie.
  I am extremely sorry that we should make such a serious decision. It will not please the Chinese Government, it will worry the Chinese in Hong Kong, it will be extremely difficult to work out and it will have a most depressing effect on the people of this country. I have not received a single letter in favour of the Billl, from the immigrant population or the indigenous population in my constituency or from anyone else; but I have received many against it.
  What are we doing as a Conservative Government, the trustees for the ordinary people in this country, but letting them down in such an appalling way? It is a matter of great shame to me, and I cannot understand why it is being done. I am sure that it has been hurriedly thought out and not thought out properly. I fear that the debates here, which will be long and hard in this difficult summer, will create awful problems for the Government. When the Bill is passed, it will cause further problems and headaches for the governor and officials of Hong Kong.
  Nor do I like officials in Hong Kong, who are not accountable to anybody, deciding who should enter this country and be a subject of the Queen. This is a new Bill and a new change, as the War Crimes Bill was a new Bill. We must stop bringing such new Bills before the House. We do not like this Bill, we do not want it, and I hope that it will be defeated.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The House should be well aware that the Labour party has firmly opposed the intention behind the Bill ever since it was first announced more than nine months ago. We described it as a charter for those with influence and affluence, and as elitist and unworkable. When it was published before Easter, our view was decisively confirmed. Before I sit down, I shall take the opportunity of replying to the debate to set out in detail the Labour party's policy on Hong Kong.
  We said that the scheme was unworkable. In 1988, the Home Office processed 70,800 citizenship applications, with 361 staff employed for that purpose. For the processing of the hundreds of thousands of applications for passports expected under the Bill, seven officials will be specifically allocated. That is what the financial memorandum to the Bill states.
  We said that the Bill was elitist. Under its scheme, points for passport eligibility are to be awarded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said, on the size of earnings as a measure of success as well as for substantial financial investments. I am not surprised that, deriving from a party that once traded in the sale of honours, Social and Liberal Democrats support a Bill that introduces a trade in passports.

  1637
  We said that the scheme was elitist. Two categories in the Bill, totalling 6,800, will mainly confer those passports on privileged persons invited to apply by the governor of Hong Kong, basing his decision on personal knowledge and contacts. That is a recipe for favouritism and cronyism in the award of United Kingdom passports.
  We did not realise that the Government's proposals would be such a complete muddle. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) rightly described the Bill as "not thought out properly". We do not know even now whether the complete scheme is before the House. During his ludicrous visit to Hong Kong last week, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as he clowned his way around the colony, referred to an additional passport plan under which British companies will be able to second senior employees to Britain for a period that would make them eligible for passports. That would introduce a novel and totally unacceptable principle under which recipients of British passports would be selected by private individuals running companies.
  Nor could we have forecast that the scheme would be so nonsensical. On the age criterion, positive points are awarded only for applicants aged between 30 and 40. At all other ages, points decrease. Under the experience criterion, 10 points may be awarded for each year of relevant work experience up to a maximum of 15 years. Between the ages of 25 and 30, and between 40 and 45, applicants will gain points for experience but lose points for being either too young or too old.
  To understand the full absurdity of the scheme, let us consider the case of a woman aged 64 holding the office of Prime Minister. She would probably be regarded by the Home Secretary as a key worker. For the experience factor, she would receive a maximum of 110 points, and for education and training, she would receive up to another 100 points. British links could get her a further 50 points, and knowledge of English would probably clock up another 50, despite her tendency to confuse the singular and plural first person pronouns.
  Under the special circumstance heading, as the criteria are subjective and non-accountable, she might win 50 more points for exceptional merit or outstanding achievements. On the other hand, she would win no points for public or community service, as such service in an official capacity is excluded from the scheme. So far, she wins up to 360 points out of a possible 800. However, she loses 200 points for being over 60, and ending up with only 160 points, she unfortunately would not qualify for a passport.
  The scheme is not only ridiculous, but is being put forward on an unprecedented basis. As his colleagues have done before him, the Home Secretary, echoed by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said that the intention behind the Bill was that passport holders would not take up their right of entry to Britain. This is the first time in my 20 years in the House that I have heard a Government ask Parliament to enact a Bill on the explicit assurance that it will not be implemented. It is hypocritical to ask the House to pass any Bill unless the Government intend it to come fully into operation.
  The Government are seriously misleading the House by claiming that the Bill will anchor passport holders to Hong Kong. The Chinese Government have made it brutally clear that, after Hong Kong becomes part of the People's Republic in 1997, the passports issued under the Bill will
  1638
  not be valid for leaving or entering Hong Kong, and that, to quote the words of a senior official of the Chinese Government who is dealing with these matters, the passport holders
  "will be considered Chinese citizens and thus will not be entitled to British consular protection after 1997."
  In the light of such repeated pronouncements by the Chinese authorities, those awarded passports under the scheme, far from being anchored and encouraged to continue the administration and business life of Hong Kong, would be far more likely to use them to come here while the going was good and while the passports could be used. The Home Secretary was completely wrong in his response to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on this matter.
  Mr. Adley: To get the point clear, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that his point about the Chinese Government's attitude to the passports has not just emerged, but was referred to specifically in two memoranda, both of which were signed by both Governments in 1984?
  Mr. Kaufman: The Chinese Government have made their position increasingly clear. On the very day that the Foreign Secretary announced the scheme, they made their position clear again. The Government should have been in no doubt on the subject.
  In an effort to stampede support for the Bill, the Government have made much of what they call the "flow of emigration" from Hong Kong. The Home Secretary did so again this afternoon, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). They claim that only this scheme can staunch the flow of emigration from Hong Kong. The fact is that, although there is, understandably, great concern in Hong Kong about its future after 1997, substantial emigration from the colony is nothing new.
  When the House debated Hong Kong in July 1988, almost a year before the Tiananmen square massacre, the then Foreign Secretary, now Leader of the House, said:
  "I turn now to another source of concern—emigration from Hong Kong … There can be no doubt that it is real, particularly among the professional and middle classes. Even so, the scale should not be overstated. We should remember that Hong Kong has had a tradition of emigration throughout its history. In the early 1970s the numbers emigrating were higher than they have been in the last few years."—[Official Report, 15 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 702.]
  The latest figures show that, whereas in 1989—which included the six months following the Tiananmen square massacre—those emigrating from Hong Kong numbered 42,000, in 1988 the number emigrating was 3,800 higher, at 45,800. I do not seek to minimise the understandable apprehension caused in Hong Kong by the massacre but it was always inevitable—even without such horrific events—that there would be substantial emigration as 1997 approached. The Bill will not stem that emigration; it will give it added impetus.
  Mr. Roger Sims: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that people who obtain passports will come here as quickly as they can. Is he aware that, since last July, the Singapore Government have accepted applications from 17,000 heads of household in Hong Kong, of whom 600—just 3·5 per cent.—have taken up passports? Is it not likely that the same would occur here?
  Mr. Kaufman: The fact is that China will not take over Hong Kong until 1 July 1997, so there will be a considerable period during which passports will be available after the Bill is passed. All the indications are that the impetus will be there for those who are awarded the passports to use them for travel while the Chinese Government will not prevent them from doing so.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but after that I hope that the House will forgive me if I impose a moratorium on interventions.
  Mr. Budgen: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the Opposition's important motion proposing that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House if it gets its Second Reading. He will reflect that the House recently spent four days debating the Budget, which is likely to be a matter of transitory interest within two or three months. The Bill will affect the whole country for a generation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to persuade as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible that it would be a grave abuse of Parliament were the Bill merely pushed upstairs into a Standing Committee.
  Mr. Kaufman: This is a constitutional Bill dealing with nationality, and I should have thought that the Government would volunteer to have it dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. The Government not having done that, I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats—the Liberal party was once a great constitutional party—should be voting with them to smother debate on the Bill.
  There are some Conservative Members who seek to use the possible arrival in Britain of those holding passports under the Bill to provoke a racist scare. Any debate on Tory manifesto pledges on immigration must be a matter for disputation on the Conservative Benches; it is no concern of ours. The Opposition are concerned about the serious and unfair distortion of immigration policy that the Bill will bring about.
  It is no good saying that the Bill does not have an immigration policy aspect. Let me tell the House about my constituent, Koon Tai Chan, a Hong Kong Chinese about whom I have received a letter from the Manchester law centre only this week. He is the brother of a British citizen, the husband of a British citizen and the father of a baby born here. He is at present subject to a deportation order. Unless the Home Secretary relents, which so far he shows no sign of doing, Koon Tai Chan will soon be permanently separated from his wife and child and sent back to Hong Kong. The only way in which his British family can stay united with their husband and father is to accompany him to Hong Kong—a place whose future the Government regard as so precarious that they propose to provide a lifebelt under the Bill for 225,000 of the colony's most influential and affluent citizens.
  Koon Tai Chan is not essential to Hong Kong's business life or administration; he is simply a cook. The Home Secretary would no doubt add that, as an overstayer under the terms of the Immigration Act, he is what the Home Office calls a "bad case". To me, Koon Tai Chan, with a British wife and a child in my constituency, is a better "case" than all those who will receive passports under the Bill, and there is no way that I propose to agree
  1640
  to the passage of a statute that will perpetuate—indeed, make far worse—the heartless injustices of the Government's immigration policies.
  Such injustices apply to citizens and residents of this country originating not only from Hong Kong, but from the Indian sub-continent and from other areas as well. Those who will get passports under the Bill will not have to submit to DNA testing, to humiliating medical examinations or to the primary purpose rule. They will not be subjected to offensive questioning of the kind that I heard in the immigration department of the British high commission in New Delhi last week. A man who wanted to come here for a short visit to attend a wedding was subjected to a catechism that included inquiries about how many acres of land he rented and what the annual return was on that land.
  The people who receive passports under this Bill will not have to wait hours in a hut for an interview, as did an Indian university professor last week at the New Delhi high commission. Under this Bill, if he was a Hong Kong Chinese, he would probably get enough points to qualify for a British passport. However, as an Indian, he had to wait for hours simply to plead for a tourist visa.
  In any case, the Bill is not even increasing confidence among its prospective beneficiaries. While awaiting publication of the Bill, Dame Lydia Dunn of OMELCO stated on 4 July last year that the creation of categories would be divisive and difficult to defend. She said that the creation of such categories would make it more difficult to govern Hong Kong. I am baffled as to why she has gone back on a series of such statements.
  Many of her fellow residents of Hong Kong continue to be uninspired by the Bill. A trade union leader, Lee Chuk-Yan, said:
  "It gives one more choice to people who already have lots of choices. It gives nothing to those who have no choice."
  An opinion poll in Hong Kong a few weeks ago showed that 90 per cent. of executives, professionals and entrepreneurs—the people whom this scheme is designed to impress—doubt whether the package will achieve its objective, while 86 per cent. of younger Hong Kong residents regard the passport plan as irrelevant.
  Rev. Lo Long-Kwong who leads a group called "Hong Kong People Saving Hong Kong" said of the Bill:
  "It is unbalanced and people who do not fall within these categories will feel deserted and unimportant. This does not help the whole society to face the confidence crisis."
  A scheme that divides employees in both the private and public sectors into selected and rejected will make the colony harder, not easier, to run.
  I cannot understand the Home Secretary's argument that the 96 per cent. of the Hong Kong population who will not qualify will somehow gain confidence from the knowledge that 4 per cent. of their wealthier and more influential compatriots are to be passengers on Waddington's ark.
  No doubt it is that adverse reaction among alleged beneficiaries that led the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonealth Office, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), to indulge in Hong Kong last week in his comedy performance, when he went around blithely promising Hong Kong residents passports from West Germany, Belgium, Canada, Australia, France, Luxembourg and numerous other countries, amounting to 50,000 passports in all. All the countries concerned instantly repudiated what the Minister of State had said.

  1641
  For example, the West German Government stated with some perplexity that the Minister of State's statement was "a strange thing". More curtly they describe it as nonsense. No wonder the Minister of State gave journalists a telling off for what he called
  "interpreting the syntax in an excessively fastidious way."
  It seems that the Minister of State picked up his strange ideas from reading newspapers—a method of acquiring information that the Prime Minister would certainly not recommend. We are told that the Foreign Secretary will deal with that subject when he replies tonight. I hope that any information that he has for the House is more firmly based. The fact is that the Government's policy has been an inconsistent mess.
  Mr. Couchman rose—
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Kaufman: I give way to the hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Bruce).
  Mr. Bruce: Whether it is true or not, the people of Hong Kong believe that the Labour party would take away the right of abode in the United Kingdom from people for whom that was included in their passports. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could state whether that would be Labour policy.
  Mr. Kaufman: That s a useful intervention and I shall certainly respond to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Now—at this moment. When the Foreign Secretary made his statement about the scheme on 20 December, I said:
  "If the scheme is embodied in an Act, a Labour Government, on coming to office, will examine how far it has gone and how it has worked … A Labour Goverment will not be bound to continue it".—[Official Report, 20 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 366.]
  By that we mean, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) repeated earlier, that we shall of course observe the law as passed by Parliament, but as the Bill expressly provides for alterations to the scheme of allocation, I am sure that the Government would not abdicate the right to alter the scheme, and neither shall we. That is our position.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman; I am afraid that he is rising to be helpful, which I should much prefer him not to be.
  On the one hand, the Foreign and Commonweath Secretary offends the Chinese by the passport scheme, but in every other way the Government cosy up to them and bend the knee to them.
  When, immediately after the Tiananmen square massacre, I urged the present Leader of the House, then the Foreign Secretary, to cut off Government funding for a trade mission that was soon to go to China, the right hon. and learned Gentleman called in aid
  "the advancement of the cause of respect for human rights in China—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 967].
  as justification for the Department of Trade and Industry financing a mission that was planned to meet the man who gave the orders for the massacre.
  Then, in September, I revealed the breach of the Government's own arms embargo on China with the sale of head-up displays and radar equipment for use with Mig fighter planes. We all know that, a couple of weeks ago, the
  1642
  Prime Minister slipped out of Downing street to attend a private dinner with the Chinese ambassador at his embassy. What signal was that cosy social occasion meant to send to the people of Hong Kong?
  The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have long been determined to "converge"—to use the fashionable word—with China at all costs. The most unforgivable sell-out has been on progress in establishing democracy in Hong Kong. I state clearly that, in the past, Governments of both parties have had a sorry record on this issue. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), as well as the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), were right about that. Both parties have failed to give Hong Kong citizens the right directly to elect their Legislative Council. I readily acknowledge the culpability of past Labour Governments on that matter.
  However, with the signing of the joint declaration in 1984, a new opportunity arose for direct democracy in the colony. We in the Labour party joined representatives from Hong Kong in urging the holding of elections. The present Leader of the House brushed aside our plea for elections to begin in 1988 and eventually announced that only 10 Members—18 per cent.—of the Legislative Council would be elected in 1991.
  After the Tiananmen square massacre, we urged the Government to give confidence to the people of Hong Kong by speedily increasing the number of Legislative Council Members who were to be elected. When, in June last year, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended that 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council should be directly elected in 1991 and 100 per cent. in 1995, on behalf of the Labour party I gave immediate support to that recommendation.
  When representatives of OMELCO came to Britain this January and called for one third of the Legislative Council to be elected in 1991, 50 per cent. in 1995 and 100 per cent. in 2003, we supported their case, although it was a retreat from our position and that of the Select Committee. Indeed, the present Leader of the House, when speaking to the House last June, seemed to favour OMELCO's 2003 target for 100 per cent. direct elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the policy?"] We shall come to the policy.
  When, after eight months of procrastination, the present Foreign Secretary announced the Government's decision in February it was for only 18 directly elected Members next year—less than a third—followed by a third in 1995 and 100 per cent. not in 2003 but possibly in 2007. As was made clear by the Home Secretary's response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Government have sold out to Hong Kong on democracy by making a deal with those same Chinese to whom they finance trade missions, break their embargo and sell arms and with whom the Prime Minister secretly dines. Now. as a fig leaf to conceal that sell-out, they have put forward this muddled, self-contradictory and discriminatory Bill.
  The Bill does everything for the most favoured. For useful citizens such as social workers—
  Mr. Tebbit: I sensed that the right hon. Gentleman was coming to the end of his speech, having given himself very little time to say exactly how his policy would work. His right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the Labour party

  1643
  had defined the categories of Hong Kong citizens whom it would admit. The right hon. Gentleman must know how many that amounts to. What is the number?
  Mr. Kaufman: The Cabinet has played a numbers game within itself—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Answer."] For his own purposes, the right hon. Gentleman is also playing the numbers game. We refuse to play a numbers game on immigration. We say that the Bill offers nothing to useful citizens such as social workers, or to students who risk Chinese wrath by demonstrating for democracy as they did only a few days ago. It does nothing for trade unionists, who are always at risk from authoritarian regimes. It does nothing for specific groups which will undoubtedly be disadvantaged by Chinese rule.
  The Opposition believe that action is necessary but that it should be action far different from that contained in the Bill. We agree with the Select Committee that the right of abode in Britain should be given to the Hong Kong ethnic non-Chinese, the Indians. We would give them an effective right of abode with a nationality, something that the Government have not done.
  Although we cannot accept the Select Committee's recommendation of limited relaxation of United Kingdom immigration law, we agree that the Home Secretary's discretion under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 should be used generously on an individual basis to confer British citizenship on public servants who might be at risk. We would also use the Home Secretary's discretion on an individual bas s to allow entry for certain other people who might be at risk under Chinese rule, such as trade unionists, journalists and political activists.
  We do not believe that it is possible to obtain or offer definite international guarantees, such as those proposed by the Select Committee, for British dependent territory passport holders, but we agree that international discussions should take place with a view to obtaining assurances about policy in the event of a crisis after Hong Kong is transferred to China in 1997. Above all, we do not accept the Government's agenda or that of their opponents on their own Benches which creates the impression that the Hong Kong issue revolves solely around immigration and nationality issues.
  We believe that confidence in the colony among the overwhelming mass of the population who are certain to remain there after China takes over must be buttressed and reinforced in other significant ways. That is why a Labour Government on coming to office will look positively at the position and, as time allows, at the possibility of increasing the number of directly elected Members on the Legislative Council. It is not enough simply to keep the colony in satisfactory working order for Chinese sovereignty.
  We, accepting the limitations of our power, assert that, until midnight on 30 June 1997, the United Kingdom remains the sovereign power in Hong Kong and should act accordingly. We do not see doling out a number of passports, as provided in the Bill, as a proper, let alone sufficient, exercise of that power. It is a substitute for it. This is a bad Bill, and we shall vote against it.
  9.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As often happens when discussions take place across party lines, this has been a
  1644
  good, robust debate. It is remarkable that until 8·30 pm, although we had a string of Labour speeches, not one from the Back Benches was in support of the party line. Having just heard it, we can understand the reasons for that.
  We are grateful for the solid, shrewd support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), who went to Hong Kong, saw the position for himself and changed his mind, and of my right hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who has long experience of these matters. I listened carefully to the critical speeches from my hon. Friends and to the criticisms in the speeches of our supporters.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked about heads of households. That simply means the individual selected under the scheme who will be eligible for registration. In theory, a husband and wife could both apply, but only one would be awarded citizenship as the principal beneficiary. He asked about character checks on children. I think that he was confusing the immigration rules, where character would not be an impediment, and the provision in the Bill, which has parallels elsewhere, that a character requirement is relevant for citizenship. If one thinks of a 17-year-old with a criminal record, one can see the reasons for that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West pressed my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about the widows of British citizens. In Hansard tomorrow he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend covered the point, but if he is dissatisfied, no doubt he will pursue it. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—I am sorry that I missed both speeches—asked specifically about vulnerable people, such as political activists and journalists. They are covered by the group 3 undertakings and would be eligible under the sensitive services scheme which is part of the Bill.
  One of the main themes of the debate has been our relationship with China. My right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) all touched on that. We must tread a tightrope in our dealings with the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong. We stay in close touch with China and I make no apology for that. We seek to influence China and I agree that in that respect we have a big task ahead of us. We have no wish to pick quarrels with the Chinese or to complicate the transition to the eventual transfer of power. The constitutional arrangements for the start of the democratic process in Hong Kong next year showed that policy of ours in action. We were much criticised and have been again today by the Opposition and the press in London for reaching an understanding with the Chinese on that point. Yet my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford supported me on that occasion, as did other sensible people. I think that we were right. The House should not take it that, between now and 1997, we will simply listen to every view from Peking, whether whispered or shouted, and then follow it. We did not act in that way on the constitutional question, as those who followed it know, and we shall not act in that way on the nationality question.

  1645
  We are using many means to persuade the Chinese of our good faith and good sense in putting forward the Bill. Once they see that a spoiling exercise will not succeed I hope that they will come round to share our view of the Bill's merits. The truth of the matter is that we must act between now and 1997 on the judgments that we, as trustees for Hong Kong, make on what is best for Hong Kong. I do not believe that the House would wish it otherwise.
  The right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) came back to the issue of democracy. I believe that the policy that they now advocate is unreal. Compared with the White Paper of 1988, we have speeded up our plans, as the right hon. Member for Gorton acknowledged, for democratic reform. In the past few months, the Government had to choose to make a steady start towards democracy in the Legislative Council next year in a way that will be sustained and improved by the Basic Law after 1997. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that we should look for opportunities for improvement before then, for example, in 1995. The choice was between making a start next year in a way that could be sustained and improved or starting next year at a higher level, which would have been immediately denounced and eventually reversed by the People's Republic of China. The more I think about it, the more I think we were right in our conclusion and that view is increasingly shared in Hong Kong.
  It has been argued that the attitude of the People's Republic of China to the Bill will make the scheme unworkable. We have taken pains to explain to the Chinese that the main objective of the scheme is to stem the exodus of talented and enterprising people from Hong Kong and thus maintain Hong Kong's stability and prosperity. That is one of our obligations under the joint declaration. The provisions of the joint declaration and the Basic Law state that British and other foreign nationals may continue to serve in or be recruited to all but a small number of top posts in the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. China is willing—it is in the Basic Law—to accept that up to 20 per cent. of the Legislative Council after 1997 can be foreign passport holders.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton referred to recent statements by the Chinese on consular protection. We shall ensure that the interests of British citizens will be protected to the fullest possible extent under international law. The joint declaration and the Basic Law provide that people in the SAR after 1997 will have the full protection of the law, including basic human rights as enshrined in the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
  The question is whether Hong Kong people are free to come and go as they please. Freedom of movement is guaranteed by the joint declaration and the Basic Law and they provide that Hong Kong people
  "may use travel documents issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, or by other competent authorities of the People's Republic of China, or of other states."
  I promised to deal with the question of international support. Hong Kong is an international centre and it has huge international investment, and its major trading partners have a strong interest in its continuing stability
  1646
  and prosperity. On that basis, some countries, already of their own volition, have started to provide such international support and we have encouraged others to do so. Singapore has already introduced a scheme covering up to 25,000 heads of household. Within the European Community France has already implemented a scheme to provide for the right of entry to employees of French companies and their families. In the past few days the Belgian Government have announced a similar scheme and Germany and Luxembourg are finalising schemes broadly of the same nature. The House may know of the proposal being considered by the United States Congress that would enable Hong Kong people granted the right to settle in the United States, up to 20,000 a year, to defer settlement there until 2002. Such measures, whether they are specifically tailored to Hong Kong or reflect the general immigration policies of the countries concerned, are helpful. Taken together, they could already add substantially to the impact of our scheme.
  A number of Governments are still considering schemes—this is a continuing effort on our part, and, we hope, on theirs. However, it should be clear to the House that, while it was right for us to take the lead, our scheme will have substantial backing from others. If the Bill were to fall, as The Times leading article said today, others' efforts would also be liable to fall.
  British citizens from Hong Kong will have exactly the same rights as any other Community country citizen to work and settle in any part of the European Community. I have been asked about that. When we speak about those who might come here from Hong Kong as a result of the Bill, by "here" we mean not just Britain, but anywhere in the EC. We can imagine that a sizeable proportion of those who come will go to other EC countries.
  I shall refer next to the main thrust of criticism from my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken against the Bill. I think that they would accept that in the past four months I have never joined in any criticism of Conservative Members who criticised our proposals, because I strongly endorse the need for firm but fair immigration controls. I believe, to quote our manifesto, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford did, that firm, fair immigration controls are essential for harmonious and improving community relations. I have not only preached that policy, but practised it, in contrast to the right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and for Gorton. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have worked on such matters before.
  The Immigration Act 1988, put through by the Home Office, tightened the controls in the way that we promised in 1987. Consideration of immigration control has been in our mind throughout this discussion, but there is another consideration that was not there in 1987, because the 1987 election was fought before the events in Tiananmen square. The further consideration is the need to keep Hong Kong going, as our last big colony, at the level of prosperity and stability that the British interests and reputation require. We have had to reconcile those two considerations.
  We decided that, due to the first consideration, we could not accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), which he repeated today, and let in all the 3·25 million British dependent territories citizens—
  Mr. Ashdown: We would not be letting them in.
  Mr. Hurd:—or rather, give them right of abode. We decided that that option was not compatible with our stand on immigration control. We decided that, due to the second consideration—what one might call the Tiananmen consideration—we could not say a flat no to Hong Kong.
  I readily agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, that a compromise has emerged in the Bill. It is criticised by some as going too far, and by others as not going far enough. I think, as did my hon. Friend, that we have probably got it about right.
  If we had sat back, said nothing, failed to produce a Bill, and said that it was all too difficult, and if our other policies had failed and Hong Kong had degenerated into chaos and anarchy, we might have faced a refugee problem that neither law nor administration could prevent. People could have come and claimed asylum as refugees, conceivably on a scale that would make the present measure look small.
  I can understand Opposition Back Benchers who genuinely favour a massive liberalisation of our immigration laws. I have listened to them for four years. I do not agree with them, but I respect their point of view. However, why is it that the Opposition Front Benchers, having voted time and again for the relaxation of particular aspects of immigration law, oppose the Bill? Is it because the people who are being offered passports are the Queen's subjects in our last big colony, rather than citizens of an independent Commonwealth country? Surely the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook can see the difference between our attitude to them and to a Sikh wishing to come from the Punjab, the stability and prosperity of which is a matter of interest to us, but for which we do not have the responsibility that we have for those in our last big colony of Hong Kong.
  Mr. Hattersley: The responsibility that I believe we have in the case that I cited is to the British woman living in Britain who has a right to be united with her husband but is denied it by the Government.
  Mr. Hurd: The record will show that the right hon. Gentleman equated anxiety about the position in the Punjab with anxiety about the position in Hong Kong.
  Is the opposition to the Bill on the part of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen because these are professional people who we hope will stay in Hong Kong but who, if they came to Europe, would make a strong and immediate contribution to our society? Is it because some of them work successfully in a capitalist society or in public services of high reputation? Why do Labour Front-Bench spokesmen discriminate against those key people in Hong Kong? It makes no sense in terms of the principles that I am accustomed to hearing from the Opposition; it makes sense only in terms of an unprincipled effort to embarrass the Government.
  The mask of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook slipped when he accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of seeking to preserve his racist credentials. The mask slipped and a nasty little bit of prejudice peeped out.
  It is not true to say that the scheme will be of no benefit to the whole community in Hong Kong, which wants the public services, the prosperity and the stability of the colony to be maintained. The whole population of Hong Kong has an interest in the success of the scheme.
  1648
  The right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and for Gorton were both continuously pressed by Conservative Members about numbers, but as they dodged the missiles it became clear what they would propose. I do not know which right hon. Gentleman would occupy this never-never land, but one of them would come to the House with a series of complicated propositions about immigration from Hong Kong without giving the House any idea of the numbers involved. But numbers are important when making judgments on any matter to do with immigration control.
  What would the Opposition have said, what would the uproar have been, if we had produced the Bill without including numbers in it? We decided to grasp this difficulty, to fix a total and to put it on the face of the Bill, where it now is. That is the honest and straightforward way to set about a difficult problem of this sort, and it contrasts favourably with the weasly way in which the Opposition propose to set about it—
  Mr. Janman rose—
  Mr. Hurd: Adjectives such as divisive, elitist and privileged which have peppered the Bill in Opposition speeches were, I am told, effectively dealt with by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. Of course a selective scheme has to select. Any process of selection, examination or even election separates those who succeed from those who do not—so much is inevitable. There is disappointment among the people who do not succeed, but I repeat that the services, the jobs, the success and the stability that we are seeking to maintain in Hong Kong benefit the whole community, not just those who get passports.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) greatly exaggerated my influence in this matter, as I assure him historians will record. He sought to draw a contrast between the interests of Britain and those of Hong Kong, but on a material point they are closely linked. Hong Kong is one of our largest overseas markets. Our trade with it, at £4 billion a year, makes it our largest export market in Asia after Japan, and the gross stock market value of British-owned, controlled or managed companies in Hong Kong has been estimated at about £20 billion. So an impoverished Hong Kong would be bad news for jobs and prosperity in this country.
  The basic point, however, is that this is not a Bill for millionaires. In this world my experience is that millionaires tend to be able to look after themselves. The Bill is apt to the particular character of Hong Kong, which is a capitalist society, owing its success largely to that fact and to the Chinese genius for making a success of institutions of this kind. But it works only because it is allied to high public standards within the public and the private sectors. It is the combination of free enterprise and high standards—British standards—which has made Hong Kong a success and which the Bill's aim is to maintain by keeping in Hong Kong those responsible for the high standards.
  The Bill will serve not only those who obtain the passports but all those who benefit from the standards. We do not want those standards to run down. We do not want our last big colony to end in second rate shabbiness. This

  1649
  is a case where our interests and our reputation run together. The Bill is not the whole answer; it is an essential part of the answer, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 216.

  Division No. 163]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alton, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Eggar, Tim

  Amess, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ashby, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Atkins, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Atkinson, David

  Fearn, Ronald

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baldry, Tony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Eric

  Beith, A. J.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Franks, Cecil

  Benyon, W.

  Freeman, Roger

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gorst, John

  Bowis, John

  Gow, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Grist, Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cartwright, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayward, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Couchman, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Curry, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  1650

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Norris, Steve

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hunter, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Page, Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jessel, Toby

  Patnick, Irvine

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Kennedy, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Key, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  Kilfedder, James

  Raffan, Keith

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knowles, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Rt hon Malcolm

  Latham, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rost, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lilley, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Livsey, Richard

  Salmond, Alex

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sillars, Jim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Trippier, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Trotter, Neville

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Needham, Richard

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Neubert, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wallace, James

  1651

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Wilkinson, John

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Farr, Sir John

  Adley, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flannery, Martin

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Foster, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fraser, John

  Battle, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beckett, Margaret

  Galloway, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Gardiner, George

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  George, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gold, Bryan

  Blair, Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Gregory, Conal

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Buckley, George J.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haynes, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Callaghan, Jim

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbett, Robin

  Irvine, Michael

  Cran, James

  Janman, Tim

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dalyell, Tam

  Knapman, Roger

  Darling, Alistair

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Doran, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dover, Den

  McAllion, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McCartney, Ian

  Eadie, Alexander

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Eastham, Ken

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Evennett, David

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McLeish, Henry

  1652

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shersby, Michael

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Marlow, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Gavin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mudd, David

  Thorne, Neil

  Mullin, Chris

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Murphy, Paul

  Turner, Dennis

  Nellist, Dave

  Vaz, Keith

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Walley, Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Ward, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pawsey, James

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Watts, John

  Prescott, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wilson, Brian

  Redmond, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Richardson, Jo

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Robertson, George

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wotthington, Tony

  Rogers, Allan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. John McFall

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hattersley.]
  The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 328.

  Division No. 164]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Adley, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell-Savours, D, N.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crowther, Stan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cryer, Bob

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cummings, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blair, Tony

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Boateng, Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boyes, Roland

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dewar, Donald

  Buckley, George J.

  Dixon, Don

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Dobson, Frank

  1653

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dover, Den

  Marek, Dr John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marlow, Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martlew, Eric

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Fisher, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foulkes, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fraser, John

  Mudd, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mullin, Chris

  Galloway, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Gardiner, George

  Nellist, Dave

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gill, Christopher

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Patchett, Terry

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Pendry, Tom

  Gould, Bryan

  Pike, Peter L.

  Graham, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Gregory, Conal

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Randall, Stuart

  Grocott, Bruce

  Redmond, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Richardson, Jo

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Robertson, George

  Haynes, Frank

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Rogers, Allan

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Henderson, Doug

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Ingram, Adam

  Snape, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stern, Michael

  Kilfedder, James

  Strang, Gavin

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Straw, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Leighton, Ron

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Lewis, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Livingstone, Ken

  Walley, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McAllion, John

  Watts, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wells, Bowen

  McCartney, Ian

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McLeish, Henry

  Wilson, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Winnick, David

  McWilliam, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Madden, Max

  Winterton, Nicholas

  1654

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Ray Powell,

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. John McFall.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alton, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Eggar, Tim

  Amess, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Favell, Tony

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fearn, Ronald

  Atkins, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forman, Nigel

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Beith, A. J.

  Franks, Cecil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fry, Peter

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gorst, John

  Bowis, John

  Gow, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Grist, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Cartwright, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howells, Geraint

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  1655

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jack, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jackson, Robert

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Moss, Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Needham, Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Kennedy, Charles

  Neubert, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Norris, Steve

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Knowles, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Knox, David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Page, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Paice, James

  Latham, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Patnick, Irvine

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Pawsey, James

  Lightbown, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Lilley, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Livsey, Richard

  Price, Sir David

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Raffan, Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lord, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Redwood, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Riddick, Graham

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Maclean, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Rost, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Rowe, Andrew

  Madel, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Ryder, Richard

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mans, Keith

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Maples, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Marland, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Mates, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Shersby, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sillars, Jim

  Mellor, David

  Sims, Roger

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  1656

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Squire, Robin

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Walden, George

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wallace, James

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Waller, Gary

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Sumberg, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tredinnick, David

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is generally understood that the main political parties have been on a three-line Whip this evening. Obviously, when a vote involves almost the entire membership of the House, a large number of hon. Members are to be seen milling around, looking for the right Lobby in which to vote. I myself saw several Labour Members in the wrong Lobby during out first Division. I wonder whether you, Sir, might try to ensure that at least some control is exercised at the entrance to the Lobby in such circumstances so that Opposition Members know where they are going.
  Mr. Speaker: The Lobby in which hon. Members vote and the way in which they cast their vote are not matters for me.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a similar and related point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Leader of the Opposition made any request to you to be allowed to make a statement about the enormous rebellion in his ranks that has so depleted the Opposition's voting numbers?
  Mr. Speaker: That has never been my responsibility.

  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act;

  (b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Patnick.]

  10.29 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, especially as it concerns the allocation of additional resources for the purpose of immigration control. I listened carefully to what the Foreign Secretary had to say about the operation of immigration control under the Government. It is right to place the Bill in the context of the Government's approach to immigration control over the past 10 years —[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members not remaining for the debate on the money resolution please leave the Chamber quietly?
  Mr. Vaz: The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary seemed unaware of the misery, anxiety and distress caused by the Government's immigration and nationality policy.
  I had an opportunity recently to see the way in which the Government have failed to provide the necessary allocation of resources to solve the problems in posts abroad. In particular, I refer to the position in Bombay, Karachi, Islamabad and Dhaka. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has visited, as I have, the Mahatma Gandhi building in Bombay. I visited that building a month ago and found that people who want to apply for entry clearance, not just to come here as visitors, but—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate is about Hong Kong.
  Mr. Vaz: Indeed it is. We are debating the money resolution and my argument is that the allocation of resources for this Bill will have a direct effect on the way in which the Government conduct immigration policy. My argument falls within the scope of the money resolution because resources will be denied to those who want to apply to come to his country from other posts.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The money resolution refers to this Bill, not to any other immigration measure.
  Mr. Vaz: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. However, my argument is that the money that will be allocated for this Bill should be allocated for other purposes of immigration control to ease the burden on people who apply to come to this country from other posts. I want to refer to the position in Peking which will be directly affected by the Government's proposals.
  If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was to visit Bombay—as I did—he would note that people who want to make applications must
  1658
  arrive at the building at 6 am. When I arrived at 10 am there were more than 400 people waiting to be interviewed by the immigration authorities. By 11 am—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am finding it very difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the money resolution. Can he tell me and the House how his remarks relate to the money resolution?
  Mr. Vaz: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The resolution concerns the allocation of resources for a piece of legislation to do with immigration control. My argument is quite simple. If that money is to be made available for the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, it should also be available for other aspects of immigration—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, the hon. Gentleman must remain within the terms of reference of the money resolution, which refers to administrative expenses. His remarks must be directed to that in relation to the Bill.
  Mr. Vaz: I am sure that the Government would accept that if money is being made available—
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley:: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: No, I will not give way.
  If money is being made available in this money resolution to make it easier for people to come here from Hong Kong, administrative expenses should be made available in other posts. That is my argument. I hope that the Government will be able to provide those extra resources.
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that five years ago I visited the building in Bombay that he has described. I was part of a delegation that was so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). Does the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) agree that for every category of immigration applicant, the numbers waiting now are less than half what they were and that the queues have shrunk beyond all recognition—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not try to lead further astray the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is doing his best to keep within the terms of the money resolution and the guidance that I have given.
  Mr. Vaz: I am doing my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not be tempted down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is well aware that the queues in Bombay currently stand at six months for people who wish to apply to join spouses in this country—
  Mr. Hanley: It was 18 months before.
  Mr. Vaz: I shall not be tempted down that road. The wait is six months in Bombay and a good deal longer elsewhere.
  The situation in Peking will be affected by the money resolution, especially for those who seek to come to Britain through Peking and have to be referred to Hong Kong. I am speaking specifically about the case of my constituent, Mr. Peter Flack, a British citizen who went to China as a teacher, seconded by his local authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If Conservative Members will contain themselves,

  1659
  I shall try to explain how Mr. Flack's position is directly dependent on the money resolution. If additional resources are to be provided for Hong Kong, will the situation of persons in Mr. Flack's position—a British citizen who is married to a Chinese citizen—be improved? Currently, a case that is dealt with in Peking must first be referred to Hong Kong. In this case, Peng Ling, Mr. Flack's wife—who was involved to some extent in the uprisings in Tiananmen square—could not make an application to go to Hong Kong from China. She first had to apply to join Mr. Flack through the British embassy in Peking. She was told that she would have to wait from March 1990 until November 1990 to get an interview.
  I hope that in his reply the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will tell us whether, under the terms of the money resolution, he will allocate resources to process those cases more speedily. It is my contention that for someone to wait for eight months to join a British citizen in this country is an onerous length of time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he must not invite the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to go out of order. I shall be a little more specific because I realise that money resolutions are not always easy to understand. This money resolution refers specifically to clause 4(1) and (2), dealing with administrative expenses. Any remarks within that scope will be in order, but any remarks outside would be an abuse of our Standing Orders.
  Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion. The administrative expenses that are provided for in clause 4 and in the money resolution should also be used to deal with the scandalous delays at Lunar house in Croydon. The Government are still unable to complete the task that they began in 1981 and to clear the backlogs. I very much hope that some of these resources will be directed to that effect.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that unlike one of my hon. Friends who also represents the city of Bradford, I do not have the same propensity for speaking on money resolutions. Nevertheless, as I contributed to the Second Reading debate, during which there were numerous references to the financial administration of the Bill, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State a number of questions that I hope he can answer. If not, I should be grateful if he would write to me, because there will be considerable interest in several aspects of the Bill.
  One of the difficulties that now arises from the Government's decision to resist committal of the Bill to a Committee of the whole House is that many hon. Members will be anxious to raise matters relating to the Bill, but will not be members of the Standing Committee, and will therefore have great difficulty in getting the information that they will need to answer the numerous inquiries that we shall all undoubtedly receive.
  As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, clause 4 provides that the Hong Kong Government will pay the Home Office for the costs of the administrative provisions
  1660
  of the Bill and the Act, if the Bill is enacted. Paragraph 38 of the explanatory note states that the scheme would be financed by fees paid for by applicants for consideration under it and by extra fees paid for registration by successful applicants.
  It is my view, which I am sure is shared by many others, that it is unacceptable that people should have to pay even to have their applications for full British citizenship put into the hat or lottery by which applicants will be considered under the scheme. There is no indication of what the fee for entering one's application will be. but as it is expected that the additional cost will be about £800,000 per annum, clearly it could be substantial.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us what the application fee will be and that, if the application is not successful, the application fee will be refunded. I hope that he will also tell us what the registration fee will be for applicants who are successful in the lottery. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the staff implications projected in the explanatory note. We all share his amazement at the suggestion that only seven extra staff will be needed to process the estimated half a million applications. That assumes a much higher level of productivity than the Home Office nationality division, which has 361 staff in Croydon and Liverpool and processed 70,800 citizenship applications in 1988.
  It is stated that the majority of places would be distributed in the first tranche as quickly as administrative processes in Hong Kong permitted. The Hong Kong immigration department is already very busy. I can bear testimony to that, because I have had discussions with the director of administration for the scheme. He is well aware of the enormous administrative burdens that will be placed on him and his staff under the scheme.
  If the scheme is to be administered with the speed that Mr. Donald Tsang, the director of administration, intends —he told me last week that he hopes to have the first passports in the hands of applicants by the end of this year or early next year—many of us are worried that the projected staff implications set out in the explanatory note may not be realistic. I strongly suggest that the Minister make urgent inquiries into the staff implications in his explanatory note. Many of us believe that it would be wholly impossible for the targets that the Hong Kong administration has set to be met.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) made clear, the scheme has direct implications for the granting of British citizenship here to people who now have to wait two years and one month on average for the granting of British citizenship. Many of us would be worried if further resources were stripped from the British nationality division in Croydon and Liverpool to help deal with the flood of applications anticipated in Hong Kong.
  We should be anxious if there were any suggestion that the fees that applicants here for British citizenship have to pay will be increased still further. We should be worried if the burdens on the Hong Kong administration were underestimated by the British Government in the Bill and the explanatory note, and resulted in even longer delays than our constituents now experience in obtaining British nationality.
  The Under-Secretary of State will need to consider my final point, and I should be grateful if he could write to me about it. On Second Reading, several hon. Members, including me, referred to the urgent need for several

  1661
  reforms of the scheme which would have important implications for cost and the level of administration. We referred to the urgent need to introduce both a right of explanation and a right of appeal for applicants who are refused British citizenship under the proposed scheme.
  Obviously, more administration will be required if applicants are to be told why their applications are refused and if an effective and comprehensive right of appeal is introduced. The Government will be pressed hard in Committee on those matters. In readiness for our debates, they should have clear information about how the administration would need to be improved to facilitate the suggestions that many hon. Members have made in tonight's debate and what the implications would be for the financial package.
  I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could tell us what the application fee and the registration fee will be for those who are granted British citizenship, and if he could give some indication of what contingency arrangements have been made to facilitate the improvements to which I have referred. Can he give information to justify what many of us believe is a ludicrously low estimate for the additional staff requirements, which the Government believe to be just seven extra officers?
  Those are important matters, and I apologise for delaying the House. For the reasons that I have given about the inability of the vast majority of Members to participate in the Committee proceedings, it is important that we have answers tonight or early letters in reply.
  10.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has placed me in some difficulty, as you made clear to him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Bill deals only with Hong Kong. It is difficult to reply to his points. I shall not mention that the queues in the Indian subcontinent are much shorter than in 1979 when we came to office, nor that there was a further sharp fall last year compared with 1988 because we had increased the number of entry clearance officers. However, I can set his mind at rest on the matter of cost. It will not affect immigration activities in any other way because the cost will be met by the Hong Kong Government, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who seems better briefed, said.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West wondered at what level the fees would be set. We do not know because they will be set by the governor when the Bill is on the statute book, as we hope. I am certain that he will want to set the fees at a level that is reasonable for those who will apply. I am interested that the hon. Gentleman is worried about this subject. According to most Opposition Members whom I have heard, only very rich people in Hong Kong need apply. The hon. Gentleman has a principled approach and I know from his comments that he understands that many of those coming will not be wealthy, but will have skills and can make a large contribution.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West asked why only seven United Kingdom officials were mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum, which he considered was too small a number for the large exercise of processing all the applications. The seven officials who will be stationed in Hong Kong will not be responsible for
  1662
  administering or processing the scheme. They will be there to receive the recommendations of the governor on who should become British citizens, to satisfy themselves that the recommendees are of good character and, if they are, to register them as British citizens. Their job comes after the selection exercise has been carried through. We estimate that seven officials will be quite sufficient for the purpose as their job is not to administer the scheme, but to register those whom the scheme produces.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about charges and costs, and he is right that those questions will no doubt arise in Committee. He asked a specific question about appeals. We have never had appeals on questions of British nationality, only on rights of entry and abode. Basically we are dealing with nationality and I believe that a selective scheme of this nature is not susceptible to the appeal process. No doubt that matter will be discussed again in Committee.
  I hope that the House has been helped by my short account of the factors that lie behind the estimates provided in the explanatory and financial memorandum. I hope that the House will support the motion.
  Mr. Madden: I am grateful to the Minister and I thank him for his kind remarks about what I said. Unlike some of my colleagues, I believe that the Bill will open doors to non-European rights to nationality in this country for the first time in 30 years. I see it as a way to try to improve the overall standard of nationality and immigration procedures. In addition to the other points that I have raised in principle, can the Minister tell me whether the application fee, as opposed to the registration fee, will, in principle, be refunded to those applicants who fail to acquire British citizenship?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter for the governor, but I believe that he is not minded to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Human Embryo
    10.52 pm
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have the honour to present a petition on the protection of the human embryo from Father Tim O'Connor and 410 parishioners of St. George's church, Sudbury, in my constituency—a petition with which I entirely agree:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue, or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned); and forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.
    Mr. Tim Smith: I want to present two petitions on the subject of the protection of the human embryo. The first is from the congregation and clergy of the Holy Name Roman Catholic church, Denham, Buckinghamshire and the second is from the congregation and clergy of Stoke Poges Roman Catholic church at. St. Andrew's church centre, Rogers lane, Stoke Poges.

    1663
    The petitions are identical or similar to that presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).
    To lie upon the Table.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: This debate follows the Secretary of State for Transport's announcement on 4 April, in answer to a written question tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), that he intends
  "to accept the proposal from the John Laing/GTM
  Entrepose consortium to design, build, finance and operate the second Severn bridge".—[Official Report, 4 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 613.]
  With great respect to the hon. Member for Cardiff North, I must say that the project will not be constructed in the leafy suburbs of Cardiff. That leads me to my first point. The announcement was vital to Wales. It should have been made on the Floor of the House. The decision and the manner of the announcement are yet another illustration of the contempt in which Wales is held by the Government.
  I do not want to bore the House, but my mind is drawn back to my first Adjournment debate on this subject—on 28 October 1983—when I revealed the contents of a previously secret report prepared by an eminent firm of consultant engineers, which said that the existing bridge was in a bad state.
  Leaking the report gave impetus to the demand for a second Severn crossing. A few days later, the Welsh Labour group made an urgent request for a meeting with the then Secretary of State for Transport. When we met the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), he told us in his own inimitable way that he would not dig another hole in the ground. Nevertheless, the crucial importance of a second crossing was recognised and the demand for it continued unabated.
  Eventually, on 24 July 1986, the Secretary of State for Wales, in a statement to the House, gave the Government go-ahead. If I may be cynical for a moment, with their announcement of 4 April, at least the Government have stuck to the contention of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury about not digging another hole in the ground. Rather, they have handed over the whole project and the existing bridge to a French-backed consortium. It is a shocking and disgusting decision. The Severn crossing is vital to the Welsh economy. It is our main access point. Much industrial and commercial activity depends on it. This Thatcher Government decision will not be forgotten in Wales for a long time.
  Doubts are being expressed about the likely design of the bridge and its visual impact. It must blend into the landscape. What assurances can the Government give in that connection? On the English side, access points seem to have evolved into part three-lane and part two-lane dualling, provision being made to make the latter three-lane if the need arises. This is a mistake that could prove costly. It will mean bringing the contractors back some years hence. In addition, when there are difficulties on the existing bridge—there have been plenty in recent months—they will involve a wholesale diversion of traffic to the new bridge. A two-lane carriageway could not cope with such additional traffic. I urge the Government to think again.

  1665
  There will be difficulties with motorway service areas. The new road schemes will make it impossible for many motorists to use the Aust service station. What plans do the Government have to deal with that?
  Then there is the major issue of tolling policy. All the signs are that heavier and heavier tolls will be applied on both crossings. This is an additional tax on Wales, which is still a relatively depressed region. To put it mildly, it is most unfair. Both crossings should be in the public sector and toll-free.
  The French-backed consortium will require a higher return on its investment, over a shorter period. That will necessitate higher tolls. That is the prospect for Welsh industry and commerce. Mr. Ian Kelsall of the Welsh CBI has been warned.
  Some estimates seem to suggest that the cash flow for the consortium is unlikely to yield a profit until the year 2010. Such estimates are based on initial costs of opening of about £450 million, including the cost of the new crossing, finance charges and debt on the existing bridge. On top of that there could be annual costs of perhaps £80 million, including financing of debt, operating and maintenance costs. Assuming a flow of 25 million vehicles in 1995. the bridge could produce revenue of £40 million. It would seem, therefore, that the financial viability of the project rests on the assumption of a substantial increase in traffic from 1995 onwards.
  There are a number of important questions to which answers from the Government are required. First, what assurance is there that tolls will be £1·40 in 1995? Are there to be allowances for increases other than inflation? Secondly, what are the assumptions about future traffic levels, and what is the basis for the Department's claim that tolls would last for only 21 years? Thirdly, are any costs to be carried by the public sector at any stage in the concession period? Is the capital debt on the existing bridge to be written down? Are the loans to be underwritten or supported in any way by central Government? If the Minister cannot provide answers to these questions tonight, I respectfully suggest that he writes to me about them in due course.
  I come now to what could be called the jackpot question: what if construction costs escalate? Such increases are known in the industry as cost overruns. The overruns on the Channel tunnel have been considerable. In the event of cost overruns and of the total revenue being insufficient to meet debt and operating costs, what guarantees are there for the long-term future of the crossing?
  In France, the Government have effectively had to nationalise toll motorways when the operators have pulled out. If that were to happen with the Severn crossing, the Welsh economy would be in jeopardy. The consortium has no previous experience of constructing a comparable estuarial crossing. What a way for a British Government to treat the economic lifeline of Wales. We are just being treated as an economic guinea pig in another doctrinaire experiment by this utterly discredited Government.
  Early-day motion 779 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), and I have given him notice that I shall be raising the matter. It is entitled "Second Severn crossing" and it first appeared on the Order Paper on 22 March. When I read it, I was a bit puzzled, because it gave me the impression that a Government announcement had already been made. I proceeded to make exhaustive inquiries and I discovered
  1666
  that no such announcement had been made. It appears that, at that stage, a last desperate attempt was being made to prevent the French-backed consortium from gaining the contract.
  The parliamentary Labour party has a rule that the Chief Whip must be consulted before an early-day motion is put down. I believe that the Conservative party has a similar rule. However, I understand that no such authorisation was sought or granted for early-day motion 779. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is a Front-Bench spokesman on social security matters.
  The matter was further complicated because my hon. Friend appears to have been a little confused about where the new bridge is to be situated. He told me that it was to be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), and it appears that he gave the same impression to the Chief Whip who spoke to him about the matter. Several representatives of the media told me that he had said the same thing to them. It would seem reasonable to suggest that, before going into such an issue with both feet, it would at least have been wise to be sure of the location of a project, not to mention the propriety of raising a matter that affects another Member's constituency.
  I have in my hand a letter dated 11 April from Monmouth borough council, signed by the electoral officer, saying that plans available to him show that the second Severn crossing will be in the Newport, East constituency. I am sure that the Minister can confirm that this evening.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins)indicated assent.
  Mr. Hughes: On the other side of the channel, the bridge will be in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope). We have already had preliminary discussions about how best we can help our constituents. The fact has to be faced that, when the heavy lorries and equipment move in, there will be a lot of muck and dust, together with a good deal of congestion, and people will be upset.
  I remind the House that that will be happening not in Allt-yr-yn or Bassaleg in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, but in Caldicot and the surrounding villages in the Newport, East constituency.
  I conclude by saying that Opposition Members are looking forward to the early return of a Labour Government. Wales and, I believe, the rest of the country are simply fed up with Thatcherism. That incoming Labour Government will be faced with many problems. It is perfectly understandable that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is reluctant to make commitments at this stage, and that is wise. But that incoming Government would do well to concentrate first and foremost on getting the economy right. We need much new investment, particularly in the regions, to generate long-term growth. As we know from what has happened in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in eastern Europe, it is no use redistributing less and less. To take over the two bridges and get rid of tolls would give an immediate shot in the arm to the Welsh economy, as well as providing long-term benefits.

  1667
  We have been promised that the whole issue of tolls on estuarial crossings will be reviewed. I accept that promise, and hope that something useful will emerge from it.
  11.10 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I hesitate to become involved in a quarrel between the hon. Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Clearly, however, as the hon. Member for Newport, East has raised the matter—I congratulate him on being able to do so—I must answer the points that he made.
  So seriously do the Government take the issue that, unusually, the Secretary of State is present, having broken an engagement for that purpose. Also present is my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, who has taken a considerable interest in the matter.
  Given the hon. Gentleman's comments, it could be imagined that the Government's proposals for the second Severn crossing represented an iniquitous plot designed solely to impose swingeing taxes on the Welsh economy, and to subject the Principality to the whims of foreign financiers. The reality is wholly different. We are proposing to more than double the road capacity across this vital road link within the next six years. Some increase in the cost to users will be inevitable to cover the massive investment required to finance the new crossing, but we are satisfied that the Government's selected proposal represents the best overall value for money for all concerned.
  The case for providing a second road crossing of the Severn estuary is not at issue. The present Severn bridge provided ample capacity for the traffic envisaged at the time of its opening in 1966, but since then the growth in traffic nationally—particularly motorway traffic—has been enormous, as I am sure that everyone is well aware. That, coupled with the successful regeneration of the south Wales economy in recent years—we might not have realised from the remarks of Opposition Members that it had taken place, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, who has been largely responsible for the improvement, is only too well aware of it—has meant that traffic using the bridge has tripled since its opening, from fewer than 6 million to over 18 million vehicles a year. In turn, that has begun to lead inexorably to congestion at peak times or during repair and maintenance works. A particular problem for the present bridge, given the exposed nature of the site, is that high winds occasionally require restrictions on high-sided vehicles, or—in extreme cases—complete closure of the crossing.
  All that led the Government to conclude, as long ago as 1986, that a second crossing should be provided. Two years later, in 1988, we announced that the private sector would be given the opportunity to participate in the financing and operation of the crossing. That decision followed directly from the innovation of private funding for roads infrastructure that had been so successful in the competition for the third Dartford-Thurrock crossing.
  The detailed terms for the second Severn competition were issued almost a year ago to the four selected consortia that had put in the strongest pre-qualifying proposals. The terms for that important competition confirmed the
  1668
  Government's objective of securing directly comparable bids from the tenderers on a privately and publicly financed basis.
  The bids were received last October. After an intensive initial evaluation, we were able to reduce the list of contenders to two—the John Laing/GTM Entrepose consortium and one comprising Trafalgar House and Balfour Beatty. Both designs were established to be technically and aesthetically sound and to comply with the Government's strict engineering requirements. The final decision between the two bidders and between the financing options came down essentially to which offered the better overall value for money. The assessment took account of the costs of the scheme to users of the crossing arising from tolls and to taxpayers arising from the residual costs of the scheme to Government, taking account also of the tax receipts generated by the scheme.
  As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who, I emphasise, is here tonight to support this important project, announced before Easter our conclusion that the privately funded proposal from Laing/GTM offered the best value. Negotiations are starting on the detailed terms of a comprehensive concession agreement. We shall, of course, keep the House in touch with developments on that front.
  Implementation of these proposals will naturally require new statutory powers, and my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to seek parliamentary approval for the scheme. If all goes well, we hope that construction could start at the beginning of 1992, and that the new bridge could be open to traffic by the end of 1995. It is a great and significant development for south Wales and the western part of England.
  It is a most exciting and vital development for the future of south Wales. It reaffirms the Government's commitment to the continuing economic development of this part of the country, by helping to ensure that its communications with the rest of the United Kingdom and with Europe are second to none. The bridge itself will be an international showpiece; at some 5 km long it will be the longest water crossing in the United Kingdom, and it will incorporate the longest cable-stayed span in the United Kingdom. The entire crossing will provide windshield protection for traffic—a world first on such a scale and structure.
  Against that background, it is most disappointing—if, sadly, hardly surprising—that we have to record the carping, negative criticism which the proposal has received tonight and on other occasions from the Opposition. It is not untypical that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, when he was not dealing with the particular problems he had with his neighbour, went over the top. The Welsh people, who rely greatly on my hon. Friend the Minister of State who represents their interests so well, will understand that the hon. Gentleman has taken the matter too far.
  The hon. Gentleman made particular reference to tolls. We have heard a great deal of complaint about the level of tolls and, as hon. Members will know, there was a debate about the tolls on the existing Severn bridge. Complaints have been made about the principle of whether tolls should be charged at all. I put on record for all to see and hear that the hard fact is that it has been the policy of successive Governments over very many years—including Labour Governments—that those who derive exceptional benefits from the provision of major estuarial crossings should

  1669
  contribute towards the exceptional costs of putting them there. Indeed, it is worth reminding the House and everyone listening to the debate that a Labour Government were in power in 1965 when the Severn Bridge Tolls Act was enacted. That Act provides for tolls to be levied for a period of up to 40 years to cover the costs of constructing, maintaining, operating and improving the bridge, and it is on that basis that tolls are now charged.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that all the arrangements for the construction of the bridge had been prepared beforehand and that the Labour Government had only just taken office in 1965?
  Mr. Atkins: I do not dispute that, but I repeat that the legislation under which the tolls are now charged was enacted by a Labour Government. It is no good the hon. Gentleman trying to evade responsibility for his party's commitment in that regard.
  Under the Government's proposals for the second crossing, the existing bridge will be transferred to the private sector consortium, which will collect tolls on both bridges on a common basis. The promoter's powers to collect tolls will be tightly controlled. The tolls will be specified in the forthcoming legislation and the promoter's tolling period, which will not exceed 30 years, will be tied to a formula based on revenue from traffic. The more traffic which goes over the crossing, the sooner tolls will stop. On current forecasts, tolls will be needed for about only 21 years, barely half the period envisaged for the original bridge.
  I accept that some increase in tolls will be needed. The proposals envisage, ultimately, an increase of about 40 per cent. for most users. That increase will be phased in up to 1995 to reduce the initial impact. For goods operators, the increases will be rather higher, but it should be recognised that the present £2 toll for goods vehicles is something of a bargain, given the value to operators of the time saved by using the crossing. On present expectations, the tolls will cease in the year 2013, only seven years after the date on which tolls for the present bridge are due to end. That is quite an achievement. All in all, we regard the proposed tolls as a reasonable price to pay to cover the £270 million capital cost of the new crossing. The overall cost to the community of this scheme will be less than any available alternative, whether it be privately or publicly financed.
  1670
  Concern has been expressed tonight about the Government's selected proposals on the grounds that the consortium includes a French contracting group and that its backers include a French bank. There has been concern that the consortium's scheme may not use British materials and suppliers to the same extent as the unsuccessful Trafalgar House/Balfour Beatty alternative.
  Those concerns are fundamentally misconceived. The Government most emphatically do not discriminate against British suppliers, which will be able, and well placed geographically, to compete for work related to the new crossing, but they will need to compete for that work and that includes competing with suppliers from other Community countries, just as we compete with other European companies on building projects in their countries, and are jolly successful in so doing. It is worth reminding the House that we hope that construction will start in 1992.
  There is no question of the crossings being compromised by the transfer to a private sector promoter or by the involvement of overseas companies. The powers of the promoter and the operation of the crossings will be strictly controlled by the proposed legislation, in tandem with the concession agreement. Moreover, I can assure the House that under the proposals my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales will remain the highway authorities for these roads and that the police will have all the usual powers to deal with traffic.
  Our decision to go ahead with the second Severn crossing on the basis of the privately funded Laing/GTM proposal represents the best practical deal for south Wales. It offers the most effective means of securing the new crossing as soon as possible. The House naturally has a close interest in how the crossing will be provided, and there will be a full opportunity to debate the principles and the details of the proposal when we discuss the necessary legislation in due course.
  I hope that the House will reject the carping and unnecessary criticism of the hon. Member for Newport, East and his hon. Friends about the importance of the bridge and how it will be constructed and that it will welcome the Government's positive initiative on this most vital scheme.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Land Tenure
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the discussions within the industry concerning land tenure.

  Mr. Maclean
  We welcome the debate within the industry on ways of revitalising the tenanted sector. Whilst consensus would be desirable we recognise that complete agreement may not be possible. Any proposals must genuinely address the problem and increase the availability of land for letting, including for new tenants. We hope the industry will pursue the debate vigorously with the need for effective measures uppermost in their minds.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to improve the quality of the marine environment.

  Mr. Curry
  We have set a date to end all dumping of liquid industrial waste, flyash and sewage sludge, and we will cease incineration at sea at the end of this year.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I will discuss any issues of current commercial interest to the industry should a meeting be requested.

  Farms (Pollution)
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what schemes his Department has to help farmers deal with on-farm pollution and waste disposal.

  Mr. Maclean
  All farmers are entitled to initial free technical advice and we also make 50 per cent. grants available for the handling, storing and treatment of agricultural effluent and waste. In nitrate-sensitive areas further payments will be made for substantial restrictions to cut nitrate leaching.

  Cereals
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total United Kingdom hectarage of cereals for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total United Kingdom hectarage of cereals for each of the last five years.
  968
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total United Kingdom hectarage of cereals for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  Total United Kingdom hectarage of cereals in million hectares over the last five years is:

  Year

  Million hectares

  1985

  4·015

  1986

  4·024

  1987

  3·935

  1988

  3·896

  1989

  13·894

  1 Latest estimate

  Agricultural Subsidy
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total current level of subsidy to agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure on agricultural support in the United Kingdom in 1989–90, under the EC's common agricultural policy and on national grants and subsidies, is forecast to be £1,255·5 million.

  Green Pound
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many European Community countries are in favour of devaluation of the green pound.

  Mr. Curry
  In the negotiations on the 1990 agricultural price proposals no member state has opposed the principle of a green pound devaluation.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the director of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I met the chief executive and other officers from the society on 27 March when many current issues on farm animal welfare were discussed.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he is expecting from the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to bring forward any primary legislation on farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to bring forward any primary legislation on farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister recently announced a major new initiative by the Government to tighten up farm animal welfare standards throughout the European Community. We intend to seek the fullest degree of harmonisation so that all countries of
  969
  the Community operate to the same high standards. We shall seek to ensure that welfare measures which we consider to be desirable to introduce are, so far as possible, adopted throughout the European Community.

  The Government have already announced that primary legislation is required to implement a number of recommendations by the Farm Animal Welfare Council relating to the welfare of animals at slaughter. It remains our intention to introduce the legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits to make provision for those measures which may not be covered by Community law.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on policy towards animal welfare within the United Kingdom and the European Community.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the welfare of farm animals is given priority throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  As explained in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 7 February,Official Report, column 712, we are pressing for a comprehensive package of measures on farm animal welfare to be adopted in the Community in order to achieve the widest possible safeguards.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government value the Farm Animal Welfare Council's independent and authoritative advice very highly. The council has provided the impetus for many new welfare measures and will, I am sure, continue to lead the way in its future work.

  White Fish (North Sea)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his European Community counterparts regarding further conservation measures for the fishing of North sea white fish stocks.

  Mr. Curry
  High-level discussions are now taking place in Brussels on conservation and I expect the report on this to be discussed at the next Fisheries Council. The United Kingdom has submitted proposals, following discussion with the industry.

  Agriculture (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the figure for the amount of fixed capital investment in the agricultural industry over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Annual fixed capital investment in the United Kingdom agricultural industry

  £ million (current price)

  1985

  1,226

  1986

  1,057

  1987

  941

  970

  £ million (current price)

  1988

  1,010

  11989

  1,004

  1 Provisional.

  Extensification
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Community proposals for extensification.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Community proposals for extensification.

  Mr. Curry
  We shall shortly be announcing decisions on pilot schemes for extensification of beef and sheep following consultations with interested organisations and with the Commission.

  We are also intending to issue a consultation document outlining a possible extensification scheme under which grant aid would be available to farmers wishing to convert from conventional to organic production.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to date of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy slaughter and compensation schemes.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to date of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy slaughter and compensation scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  From the introduction of the compulsory slaughter policy on 8 August 1988 to the end of February 1990, the total cost was £6,436,167.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he proposes to reduce the risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to tackle BSE in cattle and to eliminate the remote risk to public health.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the estimate of the Southwood committee of the level of reporting of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what is the current level of reporting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Southwood working party did not predict the level of reporting of suspect BSE cases. It did, however, make certain estimating assumptions about the development of the disease and concluded that there might be some 350 to 400 cases of BSE per month. Since the beginning of this year, the number of suspect BSE cases notified to the Ministry has risen and at present around 350 to 400 are being reported each week.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the factors that will affect the operation of the Milk Marketing Board in 1992.
  971
  Mr. Curry
  1992 will not, of itself, affect the operation of the Milk Marketing Board. But the single market will reduce barriers to trade and there is now more milk available as a result of the recent increase in quotas. It is important that our dairy industry should be in a position to compete vigorously at home and in other member states in order to exploit these new opportunities. That is why I am encouraging the board and the Dairy Trade Federation to pursue discussions with a view to devising milk marketing arrangements suited to the 1990s.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the prospects for the United Kingdom fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  While fishing opportunities in 1990 for certain stocks, in particular North sea cod and haddock, have had to be reduced to safeguard the stocks, the value of landings in the early part of the year has been similar to that at the same time last year. We are, however, working hard on improvements to measures aimed at the conservation of fish on a Communitywide basis to achieve improved fishing prospects in the future.

  Fishing Industry (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of recent restrictions on the viability of the fishing industry in the Northumberland fishing ports.

  Mr. Curry
  The measures I announced on 8 March were necessary to conserve North sea haddock, in the light of the current state of that stock. For this reason, they are essential to ensure the long-term viability of all sections of the haddock industry.

  Food Safety Bill
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to lay the first orders under the Food Safety Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Safety Bill is very much an enabling framework and many orders and regulations will be required. I hope to issue the first of these for consultation soon after Royal Assent.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the regulations under the Food Safety Bill will cover diet products.

  Mr. Maclean
  At present foods marketed as diet products are subject to the general provisions of the Food Act 1984 and to regulations made under it. In particular, schedule 6, part II, item 6 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 lays down the conditions under which slimming claims may be made. Some slimming aids for consumption are marketed as medicines and are licensed under medicines legislation. It is intended that these arrangements should be continued under the Food Safety Bill, but my hon. Friend may wish to be aware that the definition of food is being extended in the Bill to include"articles and substances of no nutritional value".
  This is to make it entirely clear that all diet products fall within the scope of legislation.

  Consumer Needs
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to encourage farmers to meet the needs of the consumer.

  Mr. Curry
  Recent changes to the common agricultural policy, which the Government have supported, are intended to increase the role of market forces in agriculture and so encourage farmers to respond more effectively to demand from consumers. The Government have also taken a number of specific measures, including continued funding of Food from Britain, to help farmers respond rapidly to market signals.

  Bovine Offal
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider his decision on the bovine offal ban so as to include calves of under six months of age.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider his decision on the bovine offal ban so as to include calves of under six months of age.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider his decision on the bovine offal ban so as to include calves of under six months of age.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. These animals were born after the ban on ruminant feedstuffs was introduced and even if BSE is transmitted from dam to calf, the agent would be undetectable in such young animals.

  Dairy Sector
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. Curry
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend on 8 March,Official Report, column 847.

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Curry
  The Minister and I meet representatives of the National Farmers Union frequently to discuss agricultural matters.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance has been given to help farmers in the less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Farmers in the less-favoured areas benefit from the payment of hill livestock compensatory allowances and from higher rates of grant for investments under the farm and conservation grant scheme. They are also eligible for a wider range of grants than other farmers
  973
  under the farm diversification grant scheme and for special aid to encourage co-operative forage production. All told, these extra payments amount to over £140 million a year for the United Kingdom. This is a considerable package of extra help over and above our general agricultural support policies which benefit hill farmers as well as other farmers.

  Access to the Countryside
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on access to the countryside.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 we have to balance the interests of promoting an efficient agricultural industry, the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and its enjoyment by the public. It is generally recognised that there is a delicate balance between the increasing demand for public access and its impact upon the countryside and farming. My Department's policies are designed to encourage farmers wherever practicable to provide for countryside recreation. To this end, grants are available under the farm diversification grant scheme for farm walks and nature trails and this Department, jointly with the Countryside Commission, has published a ploughing code which reminds farmers of their responsibilities in relation to rights of way. Furthermore, we support the Rights of Way (Agricultural Land) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), which seeks to clarify the existing law on rights of way over agricultural land.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he proposes to improve the labelling of foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 15 November 1989 I announced that I had asked the Food Advisory Committee to carry out an independent assessment of our current food labelling legislation and practices to see how these can best be developed to give consumers what they need and want to know. I look forward to receiving the committee's recommendations. In the meantime proposals relating to datemarking and nutrition labelling, resulting from recently agreed Community legislation, are already in preparation.

  North Sea Dumping
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from North sea fishermen about the dumping of industrial waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received representations from fishermen's organisations and individuals concerned about the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea. I am able to reassure them that licensed dumping is strictly controlled and has no adverse effects on fish stocks.

  In view of progress in the development of safe alternative land-based disposal methods I have recently
  974
  announced termination dates for the sea dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge, and marine incineration.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is pursuing into ways of reducing North sea dumping of industrial and other wastes.

  Mr. Curry
  In the light of progress in the development of environmentally acceptable methods of disposal of waste on land we have now set deadlines for the termination of the sea dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge, and marine incineration.

  Coastal Flood Defences
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department last reviewed coastal flood defences.

  Mr. Maclean
  The state of the country's flood defences, both inland and on the coast, is kept under continual review through close contact between my officials and drainage bodies, in particular the National Rivers Authority. The increases in grant provision from £36 million to £54 million for the period 1989–90 to 1992–93 announced following the public expenditure surveys in 1988 and 1989, resulted from our most recent reviews of current and future flood defence needs.

  We are currently considering with the National Rivers Authority and local authorities the need for adjustments to current programmes as a result of recent storm events.

  Anti-pollution Measures
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the cost to the agricultural industry of complying with anti-pollution measures.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received representations on the proposed regulations setting minimum standards for silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil installations issued for consultation by the Department of the Environment, the proposal to ban, in time for the 1993 harvest, the burning of crop residues, and the proposed pilot nitrate sensitive areas scheme.

  Sheep
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the sheep industry.

  Mr. Curry
  Prices and exports of lamb are well above the levels of the corresponding period in 1989. The increase in exports suggests that the industry is already taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the new sheepmeat regime.

  Agricultural Intervention Board
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the name of the site chosen for the relocation of the agricultural intervention board.

  Mr. Curry
  As soon as my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, and for Northern Ireland,
  975
  my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister have concluded their consideration of the advice received from the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last reviewed the arrangements for pesticide approval.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 3 April,Official Report, column 86.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many badgers were killed by or on behalf of his Department during 1989; and whether all those were killed under the bovine tuberculosis control scheme;

  (2) how many of the badgers killed by his Department during 1989 were (a) uninfected with tuberculosis, (b) showing signs of tuberculosis and (c) capable of infecting other animals;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the progress made to date in developing (a) a vaccine against tuberculosis in badgers and (b) a live trap side test for tuberculosis;

  (4) what extensions have recently taken place to the scope of the badger destruction element of his bovine tuberculosis clearance scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what was the total cost during 1989 of the tuberculosis eradication scheme; and of this sum how much was earmarked for badger control.

  Mr. Maclean
  A total of 727 badgers were killed by Ministry Officers in 1989, all in connection with the eradication programme for bovine tuberculosis. Tuberculosis was not identified in 605 badgers. Tuberculosis was confirmed in 122 animals and those animals were considered capable of transmitting the disease to other animals.

  Collaborative research on the development of a vaccine has been carried out by workers at the Middlesex hospital and the Ministry's central veterinary laboratory. Workers from the Middlesex hospital have completed a study in the Republic of Ireland on the acceptance of the vaccine by wild badgers. A field trial of efficacy is in progress, again in the Republic of Ireland. A pilot study at the central veterinary laboratory of the possibility that the vaccine could sensitise cattle to tuberculin, and a larger study in Ireland, have suggested that this would not be a problem. An experiment at the central veterinary laboratory to investigate possible desensitisation of cattle infected with tuberculosis has been approved in principle, and is likely to start this year; it will take at least 15 months to complete.

  A diagnostic test for use in badgers has been developed at the central veterinary laboratory and shows some promise. It has reached a stage where a field trial is necessary to study its effectiveness and the logistics of its use. It is hoped that a trial will begin in September 1990.

  There have been no modifications to the policy of badger control adopted following the Dunnet review.
  976
  The total cost of the tuberculosis eradication programme in the financial year 1989–90 was £7·3 million. Of this, £0·4 million was spent on the badger control strategy.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the findings of the Stormont research laboratory on the spread of bovine tuberculosis; what action he proposes to take in the light of the reports' findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am aware of the work done by the veterinary research division at Stormont. The conclusions in no way invalidate the existing badger control strategy.

  Record Keeping
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new administrative responsibilities regarding the keeping of records on the movement of animals, artificial insemination, home mixing of feed, and use of medicines and crop sprays have been imposed on farmers since 1 September 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  On 1 September 1989 the requirements of the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960 were extended to the movement of deer. As regards crop spraying, the health surveillance requirements of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, parts of which took effect after 1 September 1989, involve keeping of records of employees' work with pesticides containing anticholinesterase compounds. This builds upon obligations previously in the Poisonous Substances in Agriculture Regulations 1984. There have been no new administrative responsibilities placed upon farmers as regards the keeping of records relating to artificial insemination, home mixing of feed and on the use of veterinary medicines since 1 September 1989.

  Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to proceed with plans to designate nursery areas for the protection of juvenile bass stocks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided that, following extensive consultations with interested parties over the last two years, regulations should be introduced as soon as practical to establish 34 nursery areas in the coastal waters of England and Wales in which fishing for bass from any boat will be prohibited for all or part of the year. The nursery areas and the duration of the seasonal prohibition on bass fishing will be as follows:

  Area

  Duration of prohibition (dates inclusive)

  Bradwell Power Station outfall (River Blackwater)

  1 May to 31 October

  Isle of Grain Power Station outfall (River Medway)

  All year

  Kingsnorth Power Station outfall (River Medway)

  All year

  Chichester Harbour

  1 May to 31 October

  Langstone Harbour

  1 May to 31 October

  Portsmouth Harbour

  1 May to 31 October

  Southampton Water

  1 May to 31 October

  Fawley Power Station outfall (Stanswood Bay, Solent)

  1 May to 31 October

  977

  Area

  Duration of prohibition (dates inclusive)

  Poole Harbour

  1 May to 31 October

  The Fleet

  All year

  River Exe

  1 May to 31 October

  River Teign

  1 May to 31 October

  River Dart

  1 May to 31 December

  Salcombe Harbour

  1 May to 31 December

  River Avon (Devon)

  1 May to 31 December

  River Yealm

  1 May to 31 December

  Plymouth Rivers

  All year

  River Fowey

  1 May to 31 December

  Fal Estuary

  1 May to 31 December

  Percuil River

  1 May to 31 December

  Helford River

  1 May to 31 December

  River Camel

  1 May to 30 November

  River Torridge

  1 May to 31 October

  River Taw

  1 May to 31 October

  Aberthaw power Station outfall

  All year

  Burry Inlet

  1 May to 31 October

  Taf, Twyi and Gwendraeth Estuary

  1 May to 31 October

  Milford Haven

  1 May to 31 October

  River Dyfi

  1 May to 31 October

  River Mawddach

  1 May to 31 October

  Dwyryd/Glaslyn Estuary

  1 May to 31 October

  Conwy Estuary

  1 May to 31 October

  Dee Estuary

  1 June to 30 September

  Heysham Power Station outfall (Morecambe Bay)

  1 June to 30 September

  We shall also be inviting the National Rivers Authority and sea fisheries committees to consider the introduction of additional restrictions in some areas or parts of areas where juvenile bass stocks are particularly vulnerable to other fishing activities. Full details of the extent of the 34 nursery areas and the additional restrictions proposed have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is not proposed that any restrictions should be placed on fishing from the shore for which primary legislation would be necessary. However, any bass taken from the shore and landed will still need to comply with the minimum landing size of 36 cm.

  The introduction of nursery areas forms the final part of the package of measures that are being adopted for the long term conservation and management of the bass fishery in our coastal waters. The other measures, the introduction of mesh size controls for gill and similar nets and an increase in the minimum landing size for bass from 32 to 36 cm, which was subsequently adopted by the European Community, took effect from 1 January this year.

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on drift net fishing.

  Mr. Curry
  Properly regulated drift net fishing is an efficient method of fishing. We oppose the indiscriminate use such as the large-scale drift net operations for tuna on the high seas which has been occurring in the south Pacific and the United Kingdom has supported the recent United Nations resolution promulgated to deal with by such misuse. In United Kingdom waters drift nets are generally used in small-scale coastal operations for herring or salmon and where needed controls are placed on these fisheries.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Information
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those statutes currently in force which control the release of official information.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on 2 April 1990 at columns 439-41, which listed statutes other than the Official Secrets Acts which create criminal sanctions for the release of certain kinds of information.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence she has received from Key housing association about concessionary television licences; what were its terms; and what action she proposes.

  The Prime Minister
  Key housing association wrote to me on 20 March asking that its accommodation should attract the £5 concessionary television licence available to occupants of certain residential homes and comparable accommodation.

  I welcome Key housing's policy of providing mixed housing developments designed to integrate mentally handicapped people into the community. But I am advised that such accommodation cannot qualify for the concessionary television licence. The regulations approved by Parliament in 1988 were explicitly intended to restore the original intention of the concessionary scheme, which was to cater for self-contained units of accommodation rather than those which are mixed in with other housing.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last raised the issue of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its forthcoming fourth review conference with a visiting Head of State or Government; and when she next expects to do so.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not recently discussed this issue thoroughly with a visiting Head of State or Government, and do not have plans to do so. The non-proliferation treaty and other matters related to non-proliferation are regularly discussed in the appropriate fora, and in bilateral contacts at various levels.

  Engagements
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 April.
  979
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ramsar Convention
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last designated an area under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance; if he will indicate the area which is next to be designated; and when he expects to designate it.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At the time of ratification of the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat by the United Kingdom in 1976 Lough Neagh and Lough Beg were jointly listed as being conserved under the terms of the convention. This is the only Ramsar site in Northern Ireland, although a number of other areas are under consideration. It is essential that any further sites in Northern Ireland are fully protected under the provisions of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 before designation as Ramsar sites and there are no plans for the listing of further sites in the immediate future.

  Police and Criminal Evidence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the authorities and officials who have to operate under(a) a code of practice under article 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and (b) the persons, authorities and officials who are covered for the purposes of article 65 by section 66.

  Mr. Cope
  Those who have to operate under a code of practice issued under article 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 are members of the following police forces:

  the Royal Ulster Constabulary;

  the Belfast Harbour Police;

  the Larne Harbour Police;

  the Northern Ireland Airport Police.

  Those who are covered for the purposes of article 65 by article 66 and who are therefore required to have regard to the provision of such a code are persons, other than police officers, who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the persons and organisations whom he consulted before introducing codes of practice under the provisions of article 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is as follows:

  Kevin McNamara Esq MP

  Labour Party

  Right Hon. Paddy Ashdown MP

  Social and Liberal Democrats

  Right Hon. Dr. David Owen MP

  Social Democratic Party

  980

  The Lord Prys-Davies

  Labour Party

  The Lord Blease

  Labour Party

  The Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge OBE

  Social and Liberal Democrats

  The Lord Hampton

  Social and Liberal Democrats

  The Lord Hylton DL

  Rt Hon. James Molyneaux MP

  Ulster Unionist Party

  Rev I R K Paisley MP MEP

  Democratic Unionist Party

  John Hume Esq MP MEP

  Social Democratic and Labour Party

  J A Kilfedder Esq MP

  Ulster Popular Unionist Party

  Dr. J Alderdice

  Alliance Party

  The Secretary

  Progressive Unionist Party

  The Secretary

  The Workers' Party

  The Secretary

  Labour Party of Northern Ireland

  The Secretary

  Irish Independence Party

  The Lord Cheif Justice for Northern Ireland

  Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland

  The Cheif Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

  The Director

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  The Chairman

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland

  The Chairman

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  The Chairman

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  The Secretary

  Association of Chief Police Officers for Northern Ireland

  The Secretary

  Superintendents' Association for Northern Ireland

  The Secretary

  Police Federation for Northern Ireland

  The Secretary

  Northern Ireland Committee

  Irish Congress of Trade Unions

  The Secretary

  Northern Ireland Resident Magistrates' Association

  The Secretary

  Belfast Solicitors' Association

  The Secretary

  The Law Society for Northern Ireland

  981

  The Secretary

  The Committee on the Administration of Justice

  The Secretary

  Bar Council

  Belfast

  The Secretary

  The Belfast Law Centre

  Information Officer

  Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  The Secretary

  Northern Consensus Group

  Belfast

  The Secretary

  Two Traditions Group

  Belfast

  The Moderator

  Presbyterian Church in Ireland

  President of the Methodist Church in Ireland

  Dr. R. H. A. Eames LLB PhD

  Church of Ireland Archbishop and Primate of all Ireland

  His Eminence Cardinal Tomas O'Fiaich

  Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland

  The Chief Officer

  Belfast Harbour Police

  The Chief Officer

  Larne Harbour Police

  Chief Executive

  Northern Ireland Airports

  HM Customs and Excise

  London

  HM Customs and Excise

  Belfast

  The Secretary

  Northern Ireland Committee

  Quaker Peace and Service

  The Director

  Northern Ireland Branch CBI

  The Dean

  Faculty of Law

  Queen's University of Belfast

  Ministry of Defence

  Home Office

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  All Northern Ireland Government Departments

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Bar Library

  Belfast

  Law Lecturer

  University of Ulster

  The Secretary

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  982
  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Clerks of the following District, Borough and City Councils:

  Limavady

  Omagh

  Hillsborough

  Strabane

  Derry

  Magherafelt

  Ballycastle

  Newry

  Bangor

  Antrim

  Belfast

  Newtownards

  Coleraine

  Armagh

  Cookstown

  Ballymena

  Portadown

  Ballymoney

  Downpatrick

  Banbridge

  Dungannon

  Enniskillen

  Carrickfergus

  Larne

  Director of Administration

  Council Offices

  Ballyclare

  Director of Environmental Health Services

  Belfast City Council

  The Principal Environmental Health Officers of the following
  Committees:

  Western Group Public Health Committee—Omagh

  Northern Group Public Health Committee—Ballymena

  Eastern Group Public Health Committee—Upper Castlereagh Belfast

  Southern Group Public Health Committee—Armagh

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been made for consents to carry out notifiable operations in the Strangford Lough area of special scientific interest; and in how many cases consents have been granted.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To date, 45 applications have been made. In 36 cases consents have been issued and in two cases consents were not actually required. Three consents are expected to be given shortly and four cases are as yet unresolved.

  I am pleased to note that 22 of the applications were verbal. Landowners and occupiers are taking full advantage of this less formal approach which was introduced by article 10 of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

  The Sunday Times
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any current officials of his Department or others involved in security force operations in Northern Ireland requested permission to give evidence on behalf of The Sunday Times in the libel action brought by Mr. T. Murphy and Mr. P. Murphy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: No.

  Lough Foyle
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the minimum depth of water in the shipping channel to Lisahally dock in Lough Foyle.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The answer is 6·5 metres.

  Kincora Boys Home
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to complete his consideration of the issues raised by the Channel 4 television programme of 28 March on Kincora.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: I have studied the transcript of the Channel 4 News programme. I note that there were some statements by Mr. Mike Taylor which are not consistent with what I understand to be the content of his 1982 statement to the police. If he has anything to add to his 1982 statement, he should give it to the police.

  For the remainder, the transcript contains no new material. As the Terry report confirmed, rumours about the homosexual tendencies of one member of the staff at Kincora reached the police in Northern Ireland during the 1970s but this did not amount to substantive evidence of homosexual abuse of boys at the hostel. Sir George Terry in his published conclusions refers, against the background of intense contemporary terrorist activity, to
  "an understandable inability to recognise that extremely vague information which arose in 1974, if probed thoroughly, may well have revealed that which was finally discovered in [the] 1980 investigations"
  but adds:
  "I do not consider … that an earlier investigation would reasonably have been prompted on the basis of the information available …"

  A full account of such rumours, which are known to have come to the attention of social services, is contained in the Hughes report. Rumours that a man may have homosexual tendencies are not by themselves a basis for criminal or disciplinary action against him. However, if anyone believes that they have substantive new evidence which is relevant, they should give it to the police.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many soldiers from the Ulster Defence Regiment who were arrested in connection with the Stevens inquiry but who were not charged with a scheduled offence have subsequently had to move home for security reasons.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: I understand that 10 such soldiers have moved house, or plan to do so.

HEALTH

  Nuclear Weapons Testing
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report the correspondence between himself and Mr. Chazov, Minister of Public Health of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, about nuclear weapons testing.
  984
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have placed copies of the relevant correspondence in the Library.

  South Manchester Health Authority
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per head of spending in the National Health Service for the South Manchester district health authority in each of the past 15 years(a) in cash terms and (b) in real terms.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures of average annual expenditure per head of resident population for the South Manchester health authority for the years since its establishment on 1 April 1982 are shown in the table:

  Revenue expenditure per head of resident population Hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  £ (cash)

  £ (at 1989–90 prices)

  1982–83

  388

  559

  1983–84

  416

  572

  1984–85

  434

  568

  1985–86

  453

  563

  1986–87

  473

  569

  1987–88

  518

  591

  1988–89

  571

  608

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of the South Manchester Health Authority —1982–83 to 1988–89 (latest available).

  (b) Mid-year estimates of resident population—1982 to 1988 (Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1989–90 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  2. HCHS includes hospital, community health and other services provided by the health authority. Capital expenditure and expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded; the latter expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees (FPCs) and cannot be attributed to particular districts.

  3. People do travel across district boundaries for treatment and resource allocations reflect the pattern of service provision locally. The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one district who receive treatment in another or for the difference in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

  4. Prior to 1 April 1982 the authority's predecessor health district formed part of a larger area health authority and in such cases district based figures were not collected centrally.

  Distinction Awards
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has met the chairman of the Central Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards to discuss progress towards a more open system, as advocated by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration in April 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Discussions have taken place between the chairman of the advisory committee on distinction awards and the Department of Health's officials and with the British Medical Association about ways to make the awards system more open and better understood. Further information about the operation of the awards system, following the changes proposed in the Government's White Paper "Working for Patients" will be available later this year.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any general practitioners' practices have expressed an interest in holding their own budgets.
  985
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 14 March at column 280

  Acute Operations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average waiting time for acute operations in(a) England and (b) Cornwall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The median waiting time for patients who underwent surgery in the year ending March 1989 was seven weeks for England and nine weeks for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics 1988–89

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of services for the profoundly mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  Government policy is to encourage the development at local level of a comprehensive range of well co-ordinated health and social services for mentally handicapped people. Advice to authorities in meeting the needs of those who are profoundly mentally handicapped was contained in "Helping Mentally Handicapped People with Special Problems" 1984—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to improve the management of social services departments prior to implementation of care in the community.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is predominantly, of course, for local authorities themselves to determine the management skills and approaches they need to develop in order to implement care in the community policy. The Department is supporting management development through a joint project between the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) on financial management training and also a joint project between ADSS and Price Waterhouse looking at the organisational response needed successfully to implement the policy.

  Family Planning (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the reduction of family planning services in Nottingham district health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Mike Heaffey Sports Centre, Stanmore
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Health Service will be making any contribution to the funding of the Mike Heaffey sports centre for the disabled, Stanmore; and if he will make a statement.
  986
  Mr. Freeman
  I am informed that North West and North East Thames regional health authority will be offering ASPIRE a joint contribution to the running costs of the Mike Heaffey centre of £45,000 in 1990–91, to be followed by a further £45,000 in 1991–92.

  North West Thames RHA, whose patients are the main users of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital where the Mike Heaffey centre is sited, will be contributing a total of £60,000; North East Thames, whose patients are the second main users, will be contributing a total of £30,000. These contributions will help put the finances of the Mike Heaffey centre on a firm footing; and, by demonstrating the NHS's support for ASPIRE's efforts to improve the situation of those with spinal injuries, encourage further voluntary donations to this worthwhile cause, which has much public support.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the largest population served by one health authority in Great Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  West Midlands RHA (resident population 5,206·5 thousand) and Leicestershire DHA (885·5 thousand) were the largest regional and district health authorities respectively in England and Wales at mid-1988. In Scotland, the Greater Glasgow health board served a resident population of 939·2 thousand at the same date.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down, near Salisbury.

  Mr. Freeman
  I said in my reply of 7 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury at column 705 that we were considering a number of possible options for the future of the centre for applied microbiology and research (CAMR), including an approach by Porton International plc to acquire CAMR. The current proposal from Porton International is unacceptable, but talks between the financial advisers to the two sides are continuing. Whatever the outcome, I am confident that the essential public sector interests in CAMR's work, including its public health aspects, can be safeguarded.

  NHS Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list National Health Service capital expenditure for each year since 1979–80(a) in cash terms, (b) adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator and (c) adjusted by the appropriate service deflator, listed both inclusive and exclusive of income from National Health Service land sales.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 March 1990]: The information requested is given in the table.
  987

  National Health Service capital expenditure since 1979–80

  £ million

  Net public expenditure

  Total at 1988–89 prices adjusted to:

  Capital receipts (mainly land sales)

  Total

  Total at 1988–89 prices adjusted to:

  GDP deflator

  HCHS capital deflator

  GDP deflator

  HCHS capital deflator

  1979–80

  407

  766

  707

  10

  417

  785

  724

  1980–81

  552

  878

  760

  16

  568

  903

  782

  1981–82

  673

  975

  899

  20

  693

  1,004

  925

  1982–83

  700

  946

  920

  19

  719

  971

  945

  1983–84

  718

  927

  925

  34

  752

  971

  969

  1984–85

  793

  975

  980

  51

  844

  1,038

  1,043

  1985–86

  842

  983

  984

  85

  928

  1,083

  1,084

  1986–87

  858

  968

  954

  150

  1,007

  1,137

  1,120

  1987–88

  838

  898

  887

  204

  1,042

  1,116

  1,102

  1988–89

  830

  830

  830

  300

  1,130

  1,130

  1,130

  1989–90

  967

  908

  1

  292

  1,259

  1,182

  1

  1HCHS capital inflation figure for 1989–90 is not available yet.

TRANSPORT

  Railways, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the provision of funding for railway services in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Portillo
  The provision of funding for local passenger rail services in Greater Manchester is a matter for agreement between the Greater Manchester PTE and British Rail.

  Coastal Trading
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those nations whose ships are able to carry cargoes in the coastal trade of the United Kingdom but whose coastal trade is closed to British registered ships.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom's coastal trades are open to all vessels regardless of flag. In the EC, British registered vessels do not have reciprocal rights presently in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece. We are pressing vigorously for these coastal and offshore trades to be liberalised before the end of 1992. Further afield, opportunities for British registered vessels to carry cargoes in coastal trades are extremely limited.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the British Ports Federation study about extending light dues to pleasure craft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The British Ports Federation report is being published today, and I have placed copies of it in the Library.

  I am grateful for the work done by the Federation on this difficult subject. I will wish to consider its report carefully, and I have reached no conclusions on its primary recommendation. This is that a flat rate light dues charge should be introduced for pleasure craft users based on a new compulsory registration system. The federation argues that closer regulation of the growing number of pleasure craft is increasingly desirable to assist with crime prevention and safety as well as to provide a basis for
  988
  levying a contribution towards the costs of the aids to navigation provided by the general lighthouse authorities which are used by pleasure craft.

  I believe these wider issues require careful consideration, and I am therefore seeking the views of interested parties on all aspects of the BPF report before reaching any conclusions. The changes recommended by the BPF could in any event not be implemented without primary legislation.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached a decision on the regulations governing those who are supervising learner drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responses to the recent consultation indicated overwhelming support for the introduction of minimum requirements on the age and experience of those who supervise learner drivers.

  In the light of the comments received, I have decided to introduce requirements for a minimum age of 21 years and three years as the holder of a full driving licence. There will be no change in the requirements for supervisors of HGV and PSV learner drivers.

  I have today issued draft regulations for comment by 18 May, with a view to implementing the changes by the summer.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the vehicle inspectorate executive agency business plan for 1990–91 will be published.

  Mr. Atkins
  The business plan has been published today. Copies are available in the House Libraries.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set financial objectives for London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have today written to the Chairman of London Regional Transport in the following terms:"On 20 December 1989, I wrote to you setting quality of service objectives for London Underground Limited, for bus services operated by or on behalf of London Regional

  989
  Transport, and for the Docklands Light Railway. In the same letter, I formally endorsed the safety objectives which you had set for London Regional Transport and all its subsidiaries. I am now writing to you, in exercise of my powers under section 16 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, to set financial objectives to be achieved by London Regional Transport, by London Underground Limited and by London Buses Limited.
  I must reiterate that safety is your top priority. We have also agreed on the need to improve the quality of the services LRT provide and hence to meet the quality of service objective I set you on 20 December. These financial objectives are concerned with ensuring that you meet your other objectives as efficiently as possible, thereby ensuring that passengers and taxpayers receive value for money.
  I am setting three main financial objectives. In each case I have specified a level of performance which I wish to see achieved in respect of the financial year ending 31 March 1993, set at 1989–90 prices. For the purpose of measuring the achievement against the objectives, the figures actually achieved will be deflated to 1989–90 prices using the Retail Price Index.
  The objectives relate to the operating surplus of London Regional Transport and to the operating costs of your principal subsidiaries. Achievement of these objectives will not in any way impact on the pursuit of your ambitious capital expenditure programme. In the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, we announced our intention of contributing £1·75 billion of grant over the three years up to 1992–93, towards your investment programme of £2·2 billion. That arrangement is unaffected by these objectives.

  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport has forecast that it will make an operating loss, before making deductions in respect of depreciation and renewals, of £76 million in the financial year ending 31 March 1990. I propose that you should transform this loss into an operating surplus of £70 million in the financial year ending 31 March 1993, so that the day to day operations of LRT can at least make some contribution towards its investment programme. This objective assumes that London Underground Limited and London Buses Limited achieve the unit cost reduction objectives set out below and that London Regional Transport secures additional improvements in the financial performance of its other subsidiaries. The objective is based on London Regional Transport's own forecasts of future revenue, which include the conventional assumption that fare increases in future years will be in line with the increase introduced in February this year. If for any reason this assumption proves to be ill-founded, the objective will need to be modified accordingly.
  In order to meet the objective, it will be necessary for all London Regional Transport businesses to exercise their best endeavours to optimise revenue whilst running their operations efficiently and cost-effectively. Certain activities of London Regional Transport are categorised as being essentially commercial in nature. These include certain commercial bus and coach operations undertaken by subsidiaries of London Buses Limited, and all the activities undertaken by the Victoria Coach Station Ltd., London Transport International Services Ltd., London Transport Catering and London Transport Advertising. It has previously been agreed between the Government and London Regional Transport that each of these commercial activities should, as a minimum, earn a 5 per cent. return on turnover, taking one financial year with another. I confirm that I wish these activities to continue to meet this requirement.
  The Docklands Light Railway is not covered by this requirement. Nor have I sought to set a loss reduction objective for it. This reflects the fact that there are very many uncertainties about the future financial performance of the railway, whose services are still evolving: the extensions to Beckton and the City, for instance, should both open within the period covered by these financial objectives. I will wish to set a financial objective for the Docklands Light Railway, as soon as possible. Although the Docklands Light Railway is not a major contributor to the costs or revenue of London Regional Transport at this stage, it accounts for a significant part of your capital expenditure. We need to ensure that the benefits of this investment are realised in Docklands. I have
  990
  asked officials to hold urgent discussions with the Docklands Light Railway to consider what form of objective it would be appropriate to set the railway at this stage. In the interim, I look to the Board of London Regional Transport to ensure that the Docklands Light Railway makes its proper contribution to achievement of the profit target.

  London Underground Limited
  Expenditure in the day-to-day running of the London Underground system has risen significantly over the last two years. It is now some 23 per cent. above the level of 1987–88. The reasons are well known. The actions which London Regional Transport and London Underground Limited set in hand in the wake of the fire at Kings Cross, and the further actions called for in the report by Sir Desmond Fennell QC and other reports, have involved incurring additional capital and current expenditure. The complement of the British Transport Police 'L' Division has likewise increased in response to the urgent need to tackle crime on the Underground. You have introduced a new management structure within London Underground Limited, which is designed to ensure that the individual lines and stations are brought within better day-to-day management control. Last, but not least, you are now embarked on an ambitious capital expenditure and maintenance programme, which makes additional demands on your staff resources. All these developments are very welcome, and I recognise that there are further areas of the business where you see a legitimate case for increased operating expenditure.
  Nevertheless, I consider it essential that London Underground Limited should be set a financial objective, which ensures that this enormous expansion in activity with its associated costs is achieved with due regard to efficiency. This is a necessary safeguard for the fare-payers and taxpayers who must, between them, bear the cost of running the London Underground system. I propose a target to be calculated on the basis of operating costs, excluding depreciation and renewals, per operated train mile. The figure I propose is £14·02. This compares with a forecast outturn figure for 1989–90 of £14·97. We are both satisfied that this can be achieved without prejudicing the achievement by London Underground of a steady improvement in both safety and quality of service.

  London Buses Limited
  As noted above, certain bus and coaching operations of subsidiaries of London Buses Limited are categorised as commercial. They are subject to the requirement that each service earns not less than a 5 per cent. return on turnover. The remainder of London Buses' operations consists of network routes and routes operated under contract to London Regional Transport. I propose that these routes should be set a unit cost reduction target expressed in terms of operating costs (including depreciation and renewals, but excluding severance payments) per operated bus mile.
  The Government remains firmly committed to the deregulation of the London bus market, and the subsequent privatisation of the subsidiaries of London Buses Limited, but has yet to determine a timetable. I recognise that the absence of a firm date for deregulation makes it difficult for LBL to plan unit cost reductions too far ahead. However, the prospect of deregulation and privatisation makes it vital that the subsidiaries of London Buses Limited should move as quickly as possible to a position where they can compete successfully in a deregulated bus market. Their efforts to achieve this can only be strengthened by having a firm financial objective to work to. I am therefore setting a unit cost target for the financial year ending 31 March 1993. We will review the position for future years in the light of the decisions we take on the timing of deregulation. The target figure is £2·57. This compares with a forecast outturn figure for 1989–90 of £2·77.

  Public Accountability
  I would like the Board to report performance and progress in achieving all its different objectives in its annual Report and Accounts. This should include:

  (a) progress in implementing the safety objectives you have set for London Regional Transport and its subsidiaries;

  991

  (b) the quality of service achieved against the objectives set for London Underground Ltd, London Regional Transport bus services and the Docklands Light Railway;

  (c) progress towards the achievement of the financial objectives set in this letter."

  President of India (State Visit)
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department was consulted about the traffic arrangements in the city of Westminster on 3 April prior to the arrival of the State President of India; whether the procedures adopted were assessed by his officials; what prior warning was given to the road user in London on traffic effects within his Department's responsibilities; and if he will make a statement about the effect upon traffic in London when Victoria station is used as the arrival point for a state visit.

  Title

  Contractor

  1. FUNDAMENTAL STUDIES

  Cellulolysis in landfill

  AFRC Institute of Food Research, Norwich

  Methanogenesis in landfill

  Queen Mary College, London University

  Interactions between species in landfill

  Strathclyde University

  Assessment of Fungi in landfill

  Institute for Grassland and Animal Protection (Hurley). [Recently completed]

  Protozoa in landfill

  NERC Institute of Freshwater Ecology

  Anaerobic methane oxidation

  Warwick University

  General consulting

  D. Archer, IFRN

  Microbiology of landfill gas enhancement test cells

  Biotechnology Group, Harwell

  Review of microbiological techniques for assaying landfill

  Biostrategy Associates [Proposed—due to start shortly]

  2. LANDFILL GAS FIELD STUDIES

  Research and development on landfill gas abstraction and utilisation

  Shanks and McEwan Ltd. and Yorkshire Brick Company

  Monitoring and technical assessment of above project

  Environmental Safety Centre, Harwell

  National assessment of landfill gas resource

  Environmental Resources Ltd. [Complete, but 2nd phase proposed]

  Landfill gas enhancement techniques

  Environmental Safety Centre, Harwell

  Assessment of leachate recirculation to enhance landfill gas production1

  Water Research Centre

  Monitoring of trace components in condensate from landfill gas

  Environmental Safety Centre, Harwell

  Landfill gas Guidelines2

  Environmental Resources Ltd.

  3. ENERGY EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATION SCHEMES3

  Landfill Gas from shallow landfill site

  Cory Waste Management Ltd., Stanford-Le-Hope

  Monitoring of Bilham Grange Farm landfill gas

  Lemace Ltd., Doncaster [Completed November 1989]

  Spark ignition engines fuelled by landfill gas

  Shanks and McEwan Ltd. Bedford

  Gas turbine to convert landfill gas to electricity

  Packington Estates Enterprises Ltd., Meriden

  Landfill gas to electricity using dual fuel engine

  Summerleaze Gravel Co. Ltd., Maidenhead

  1Part funded by Landfill Gas Ltd.

  2 Funded by D. Energy, DoE and Ofgas.

  3 Schemes also supported by the Department of Energy using landfill gas.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information his Department collects on the gas industry.
  992
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The Department was not consulted. Traffic control arrangements for state visits are the responsibility of the Metropolitan police. I understand that they provided advance warning signs and informed the media of diversions well in advance.

ENERGY

  Landfill Gas
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the research and development projects being undertaken by his Department or related agencies on landfill gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The list of research and development projects currently being supported by the Department of Energy on landfill gas is as follows:

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department collects a variety of information on the United Kingdom gas industry. Key figures are published in the "Development of the Oil and
  993
  Gas Resources of the UK" (the Brown Book), and in the Department's statistical publications "Energy Trends" and the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics".

  Offshore Oil Production
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to award offshore petroleum production licences in the frontier exploration areas to the north and west of Scotland.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I am today making available a list of the licence areas for which applications will be invited in a round of licensing in the frontier exploration areas to the north and west of Scotland.

  Eleven licences will be on offer in the frontier round. I shall place in the Libraries of both Houses a full list of the grouped blocks which will be on offer in the round.

  The purpose of a separate round for frontier areas is to encourage a fresh start to exploration in areas which have been little explored in the past and where existing geological information is sparse or low in quality. A fresh start needs to be made to exploration in these areas if the contribution which the United Kingdom continental shelf makes to the economy is to be extended further in the next century.

  To offset the high financial risks attached to exploration in the deep water areas concerned, the areas for licensing will be substantially larger than usual. Together, the 11 licences will cover 117 blocks. Licensees will be expected to carry out a programme of seismic exploration in the first part of the initial phase of the licence. It is expected that any drilling will normally take place in the second part of

  Offences

  Short title of Principal Statutes

  OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON:

  Common Law, and Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Secs. 1, 9 and 10.

  Attempted murder

  Ibid, also Criminal Attempts Act 1981

  Threats, conspiracy or incitement to murder:— Conspiring or soliciting, etc, to commit murder.

  Criminal Law Act 1977 Sec. 1 Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 4

  Assisting offender by impeding his apprehension or prosecution in a case of murder.

  Criminal Law Act, 1967, Sec. 4(1).

  Manslaughter, etc:— Manslaughter

  Common Law and Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Secs. 5, 9 and 10

  Infanticide

  Infanticide Act, 1938 Sec. 1(1)

  Child destruction

  Infant Life (preservation) Act, 1929 Sec. 1

  Causing death by reckless driving

  Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 1

  Diminished responsibility

  Homicide Act 1957, Sec. 2

  Wounding and other acts endangering life:— Wounding, etc, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, etc, or to resist apprehension.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 18.

  Shooting at naval or revenue vessels.

  Customs and Excise Management Act, 1979, sec. 85(2).

  Attempting to choke, suffocate etc, with intent to commit an indictable offence (garroting)

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 21.

  Using chloroform, etc, to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 22.

  Burning, maining, etc, by explosion.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 28.

  Causing, explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 29.

  Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 17

  Placing, etc., explosives in or near ships or buildings with intent to do bodily harm, etc.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 30.

  Endangering life or causing harm by administering poison.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861, Sec. 23.

  Possession etc. of explosives with intent to endanger life.

  Explosives Substances Act, 1883, Sec. 3 (in part).

  994
  this phase. A feature of the licences granted in these areas will be extended terms to allow licensees longer periods in which to plan and carry out activity on the licences.

  As soon as possible, I will publish in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes a formal announcement giving the detailed licence terms for frontier licences (including financial terms) and the basis on which awards will be made. Any additional licence conditions, the format of licence applications, and the information required will be available from my Department as soon as the Gazette notices have been published.

  Applications will be returnable by a date in January or February 1991 which has yet to be determined.

  I will shortly make available a list of the licence areas for which applications will be invited in a separate 12th round of licensing for the established petroleum areas of the UKCS.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Offences
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences currently triable only on indictment.

  Mr. John Patten
  The list of offences currently triable only on indictment in England and Wales is given in the table.

  There may in addition be a few common law mischiefs which would be triable only on indictment, where it is not definite how far the common law remains effective.
  995

  Offences

  Short title of Principal Statutes

  Possession of firearms etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property etc. (Group I)

  Firearms Act, 1968. Sec. 16. as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(2).

  Possession of firearms etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property etc. (Group II).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 16 as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(2).

  Possession of firearms etc. with intent to endanger life or injure property etc. (Group III).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 16 as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972 Sec. 28(2).

  Using etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest etc. (Group I).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 17(1) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(2).

  Using etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest etc. (Group II).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 17(1) amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(2).

  Using etc. firearms or imitation firearms with intent to resist arrest etc. (Group III). (for definition of Group I, II and III See Appendix 1 Pt. 3—Classification 115)

  Firearms Act, 1968. Sec. 17(1) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(2).

  ENDANGERING RAILWAY PASSENGERS:

  By placing, etc., anything on railway, taking us rails, changing points and signals etc.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861 sec. 32.

  By throwing anything at railway carriages, etc.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861 Sec. 33.

  Possessing firearms or imitation firearm at time of committing or being arrested for an offence specified in Schedule 1 of the Act. (Group I).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 17(2) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(3).

  Possessing firearms or imitation firearm at time of committing or being arrested for an offence specified in Schedule 1 of the Act. (Group II).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 17(2) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(3).

  Possessing firearms or imitation firearm at time of committing or being arrested for an offence specified in Schedule 1 of the Act. (Group III).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 17(2) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(3).

  Possessing firearms or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or resist arrest etc. (Group I).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 18(1) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(3).

  Possessing firearms or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or resist arrest etc. (Group II).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 18(1)) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sec. 28(3).

  Administering poison with intent to injure or annoy.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861 Sec. 24.

  Setting spring guns, etc., to injure trespassers.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861 Sec. 31.

  Causing bodily harm by furious driving.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861 Sec. 35.

  Assaults on person preserving wreck.

  Offences against the Person Act, 1861 Sec. 37.

  Possessing firearms or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or resist arrest etc. (Group III) (For definition of Groups I, II and III see Appendix 1 part 3 Classification 115).

  Firearms Act, 1968, Sec. 18(1) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1972. Sec. 28(3).

  PROCURING ILLEGAL ABORTION:

  Administering or using drugs or using instruments to procure abortion.

  Offences against the Person Act 1861, Sec. 58 as amended by the Abortion Act 1967

  Procuring drugs, etc., to cause abortion.

  Offences against the Person Act 1861, Sec. 59 as amended by the Abortion Act 1967.

  BUGGERY:

  With a boy under the age of sixteen or with a woman or an animal.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956, Sec. 12 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 Sec. 3(1).

  By a man with a male person of the age of sixteen or over without consent.

  ibid.

  By a man of the age of 21 or over with another male person under the age of 21 with consent.

  ibid.

  By a man with another male person other than as in 1, 2 or 3 above.

  ibid.

  996 997

  Offences

  Short title of Principal Statutes

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home committing buggery or an act of gross indecency with male patient.

  Mental Health Act 1959 Sec. 128(1)(a) as amended by Sexual Offences Act 1967 Sec. 1(4).

  Man committing buggery or an act of gross indecency with mentally disordered male pa:tient who is subject to his care.

  Mental Health Act 1959 Sec. 128(1)(b) as amended by Sexual Offences Act 1967 Sec. 1(4).

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 12 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 Sec. 3(1).

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent.

  ibid.

  Attempt by a man of the age of 21 or over to commit buggery with another male person under the age of 21 with consent.

  ibid.

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with another male person other than as in 7, 8 or 9 above.

  ibid.

  Assault with intent to commit buggery.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 16.

  RAPE:

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 Sec. 127.

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient.

  Mental Health Act 1959 Sec. 128(1)(a).

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care.

  Mental Health Act 1959 Sec. 128(1)(b).

  Rape.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 1.

  Attempted Rape.

  ibid.

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 5.

  INCEST:

  Incest with a girl under 13.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Secs. 10 and 11.

  Other incest

  ibid.

  PROCURATION OF MALES AND FEMALES:

  Procuring female for immoral purposes, or using drugs to obtain or facilitate sexual intercourse.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Secs. 2, 3, 4, 22 and 23.

  Detention of female in brothel or other premises.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 24.

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 28.

  Procuring, permitting or causing the prostitution etc. of female defective.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Secs. 9, 27 and 29.

  ABDUCTION:

  Abduction of female having interest in property.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Secs. 17 (in part) and 18.

  Abduction of female by force.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 17 (in part).

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 20.

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 19.

  Abduction of female defective.

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sec. 21.

  OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY WITH VIOLENCE:

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary, with the intent to commit, or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.

  Theft Act, 1968 Sec. 9.

  Burglary with violence or the threat of violence.

  Theft Act, 1968 Sec. 9.

  Aggravated burglary in a dwelling (including attempts).

  Theft Act, 1968 Sec. 10.

  Burglary, other than a dwelling

  Burglary, with the intent to commit, or the commission of an offence triable only on indictment.

  Theft Act, 1968 Sec. 9.

  Aggravated burglary in a building other than a dwelling (including attempts).

  Theft Act, 1968 Sec. 10

  Robbery and assaults with intent to rob:—

  Robbery

  Theft Act, 1968 Sec. 8.

  Assault with intent to rob

  Theft Act, 1968 Sec. 8.

  Blackmail

  Theft Act. 1968 Sec. 21

  Kidnapping

  Common Law

  Hijacking

  Aviation Security Act 1982 Secs. 1-3, 6(2)

  998 999

  Offences

  Short title of Principal Statutes

  False imprisonment

  Common Law

  OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY WITHOUT VIOLENCE:

  Frauds by company directors etc:-

  Fraudulently inducing persons to invest money.

  Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 Sec. 13

  Other Frauds

  Conspiracy to defraud.

  Common Law and Criminal Justice Act 1987 Sec. 12.

  Fraudulent issue of money orders by Post Office servant.

  Post Office Act, 1953 Sec. 22.

  Frauds in connection with sale of land etc.

  Law of Property Act 1925 Sec. 183.

  MALICIOUS INJURIES TO PROPERTY:

  Arson

  Arson endangering life

  Threat and possession with intent to commit criminal damage:-

  Possession with intent.

  Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Sec. 64

  Explosive Substances Act 1883 Sec. 3 (part)

  OTHER OFFENCES NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE CLASSES:

  Offences against the State and Public Order High treason and other offences against Treason Acts.

  Treason Acts 1351-1842

  Treason Felony

  Treason Felony Act 1848

  Rioting:—

  1. Riot

  Public Order Act 1986. Section 1

  Perjury:—

  Perjury and false statements (also false declarations and representations made punishable by any statute)

  Perjury Act 1911, Section 1 Criminal Justice Act 1967, S 89

  Libel

  Common Law and Libel Acts 1792 and 1843

  Suicide (aiding, abetting etc)

  Suicide Act 1961, Sec. 2(1)

  Attempting to Pervert the Course of Public Justice (Fabrication of false evidence, cause person to be wrongly convicted, interference with witness, etc.)

  Common Law

  Absconding from lawful custody

  Common Law

  Breath Tests
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances a breath test may be administered by the police other than those listed in his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 635; and what was the total number of such breath tests administered in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In addition to the circumstances set out in the reply given on 21 March by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) at column 635, a constable in uniform may require a person to provide a breath test where he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person has committed a moving traffic offence, or reasonable cause to believe that that person has been involved in an accident.

  Breath tests are recorded under two headings according to the reason for the test:

  (i) where there is suspicion of consumption of alcohol or suspicion of a moving traffic offence; and,

  (ii) where an accident has occurred.

  In 1988, 443,000 breath tests were recorded. Of these, 365,000 were in the first category and 78,000 in the second category. In the most recent 12 months for which statistics are available (to September 1989), 502,000 tests were recorded. Of these, 403,000 were in the first category and 99,000 in the second category. Statistics for the fourth quarter of 1989 are not yet available.
  1000
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are plans to conduct a publicity campaign to explain to the motoring public the full powers available to the police to stop and breath-test drivers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government will continue to support the full use by the police of the powers available to them, including during our regular campaigns against drinking and driving. These powers have been explained on many occasions, most recently in the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend on 21 March at column 635. We do not consider that a further specific publicity campaign is necessary.

  Immigration Officials
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the staffing levels of immigration service officials at(a) Heathrow airport (all terminals) and (b)
  Gatwick airport, in terms of total numbers of staff and by grade, at 1 June for each year from 1986 up to 1 June 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The tables below set out the allocation of staff, by grade, at Heathrow and Gatwick airports on the dates requested. The figures relate primarily to permanent staff but also include seasonally employed officers who operate the embarkation control during the summer, thereby releasing permanent staff for the arrivals control.
  1001

  Immigration service staff in post on 1 June

  Year

  Assistant chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Chief immigration officer

  Immigration officer

  3Seasonal immigration officer

  1General service grades

  Heathrow (all terminals)—by grade

  1 June 1986

  3

  14

  77

  518

  70

  62·5

  1 June 1987

  3

  17

  85

  2571·5

  66

  61·5

  1 June 1988

  3

  19

  85

  525

  54

  54·5

  1 June 1989

  3

  16

  88

  552·5

  53

  59

  Gatwick—by grade

  1 June 1986

  1

  4

  22

  152·5

  21

  11

  1 June 1987

  1

  4

  19

  149

  8

  10

  1 June 1988

  1

  6

  29

  193

  5

  13

  1 June 1989

  1

  6

  35

  214

  18

  13

  Notes:
  1 The general service grades shown in the final column are given as one figure for ALL grades. This includes the following grades; higher executive officer, executive officer, administrative officer, administrative assistant, personal secretary, typist, messenger and interpreter.
  2 The 1987 staff in post figures for immigration officers is unusually high because of the need to deal with the large backlog of casework which arose from the introduction of the various visa requirements in 1986 and 1987. It also reflects the fact that a number of staff were based at Heathrow prior to transfer to Gatwick when the new terminal opened there on 22 March 1988.
  3 The number of seasonal immigration officers increases further in July and August.

  Police Housing Allowances
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings with(a) the Police Federation and (b) senior representatives of the police forces in England and Wales he and his ministerial colleagues have had since 1 September 1989 to discuss police housing allowances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary met representatives of the staff side of the Police Negotiating Board to discuss this subject on 24 October 1989. My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. and noble Friend also met the chairman and secretary of the staff side, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for the same purpose on 17 January this year. The staff side includes members of all police representative organisations including the Police Federation. My right hon. and learned Friend also discussed the matter with the chief constable of Surrey when he accompanied my right hon. Friend the member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and other hon. and right hon. Friends to a meeting with him on 21 February.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when representatives of the police forces of England and Wales were first informed of his general proposals with regard to the police housing allowance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Draft regulations giving effect to my right hon. and learned Friend's initial decisions on the Police Negotiating Board's recommendations on police housing allowance were sent to the board for comment on 4 January. All three police staff organisations for England and Wales are represented on the staff side of the board.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation has taken place with the United Kingdom Government over the wording of chapter 38 of the Sex Offences Bill currently before the House of Keys in the Isle of Man; and what response the Government have made.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Sexual Offences Bill has recently been sent to the Home Office by the Isle of Man 1002
  Government as part of the usual consultative procedures. Section 38 of the Manx Sexual Offences Bill, which is on the same lines as section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, takes account of earlier discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Isle of Man authorities.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what indication he has given to the authorities in(a) Jersey and (b) the Isle of Man about the steps which he would take in relation to the criminal law on homosexuality, in the event that the parliaments of these islands fail to amend their current legislation to the satisfaction of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Both Jersey and the Isle of Man have been made aware of the need to amend their current legislation in order to enable the United Kingdom to conform with its international obligations under the European convention on human rights. The Island authorities are also aware that the United Kingdom would need to legislate on their behalf, if necessary.

  Police Officers (Resignations)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many resignations of officers under the age of 45 years there have been from the police forces of England and Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many were occassioned by(a) serious injury in the course of duty and (b) all other factors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not held centrally.

  State Visits
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the number of occasions in the past year when parts of central London have been closed to traffic due to the arrival of visiting dignitaries; and if he will make a statement on the traffic disruption caused by these closures;

  (2) why parts of central London were closed to traffic on 3 April; and if he will make a statement on the traffic disruption caused by this closure.
  1003
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that parts of central London have been closed to traffic during the past year due to the arrival of visiting dignitaries on the following dates:

  6 April 1989—Official visit, President of USSR

  8 May 1989—State visit, President of Nigeria

  30 May 1989—Official visit, President of USA

  5 July 1989—Official visit, Prime Minister of Pakistan

  3 April 1990—State visit, President of India

  On these occasions parts of central London were closed to traffic for a short time and traffic held up at junctions to facilitate progress of the visitors. In every case, advance warning was given by road signs and via the media. It is inevitable that the closure of major thoroughfares will result in some increased congestion, but every effort is made to plan diversionary routes and to enable traffic to flow freely on these routes.

  United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation (Exercises)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details for each of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation exercises at Royal Observer Corps bunkers by(a) name, (b) location, (c) starting and finishing dates and (d) starting and finishing times.

  Mr. John Patten
  The 1990 exercise dates for the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation (UKWMO) are:

  INTEX 1990:—17-18 March—0800-0700 hours

  POSTHORN 1/90:—20 May—0700-1800 hours

  POSTHORN 2/90:—14 October—Times to be decided

  These exercises, which are designed to practice operational procedures, will involve all UKWMO operational controls and monitoring posts throughout the United Kingdom. The field force of UKWMO is the Royal Observer Corps.

  London Demonstration
  Mr. Hattersley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when the organisers of the 31 March poll tax demonstration asked for the location to be transferred from Trafalgar square to Hyde park, he consulted the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the desirability of meeting their request.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: I understand that the organisers applied on 18 January to the Department of the Environment for permission to hold the rally in Trafalgar square. After discussions with the Metropolitan police permission was granted on 7 March. The details of the route of the proposed march from the assembly point in Kennington park to Trafalgar square were discussed and agreed with the police. On Monday 26 March the organisers asked the Department of the Environment for permission to hold the rally in Hyde park. The Metropolitan police were contacted about this very late request but no formal decision was taken. At a meeting later that day between the police and the organisers the request was not pursued and plans for holding the rally in Trafalgar square were finalised. On Tuesday 27 March the organisers withdrew their request to hold the rally in Hyde park.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bogus Invoices
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there has been any progress in trying to secure action to be taken against those who send out bogus fax invoices from addresses both within the United Kingdom and from abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Unsolicited Goods and Services Acts 1971 and 1975 provide that any demand for payment in respect of a directory entry which has not been ordered by the person concerned is an offence, and the recipient of the demand is not liable to pay for it. The Acts seem to have proved effective in controlling such practices by firms within the United Kingdom.

  For invoices originating from overseas we liaise with the authorities in the countries involved. They share our concern but attempts at legal action in their courts have not to date proved effective. Many of the invoices originate from Switzerland and the Swiss have taken legal action under a new law on unfair competition which came into force in 1988. The outcome of this action is not expected until later this year.

  Amateur Radio Licences
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report progress on the introduction of an amateur radio novice licence.

  Mr. Forth
  I am pleased to announce that following discussions on novice licence conditions with the Radio Society of Great Britain, the Radiocommunications Agency has today published a final draft of the proposed novice licence. A copy has been placed in the Library. Work is also in hand on setting up arrangements for the training and examination of potential licensees. Those arrangements will necessarily take some time to put in hand but the agency would hope to the be ready to issue the first novice licences in early 1991.

  Origin Marking
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made on the establishment of a European origin marking regime.

  Mr. Forth
  In accordance with an undertaking I gave to the House on 10 November 1988,Official Report, column 588-89, I wrote to ministerial colleagues in other member states and to the Commissioner then responsible for origin marking matters.

  I sought their views on a possible European Communitywide origin marking regime which would require the corrective marking of third-country imports bearing European brand-names. Such a regime would appear to be the most that could be required within the relevant provisions of the treaty of Rome, the interpretation of which has been established in a number of European Court rulings.

  Responses to my letter ranged from varying degrees of support to outright opposition. In several cases I received no reply even after several reminders. I have therefore reluctantly concluded that such a proposal would not command sufficient support to secure its implementation, and I do not propose to pursue the matter further.

  Estate Agency Report
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will implement the recommendations in the Director General of Fair Trading's report on estate agency.

  Mr. Forth
  Since receiving the Director General of Fair Trading's report last month, I have given it careful consideration and generally agree with his analysis of the problems and with his recommendations.

  I believe that the package of legislation which he has proposed would deal effectively with the malpractices identified in the report while not imposing significant burdens on reputable estate agents. It is therefore the Government's intention that, as soon as legislative time is available, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 should be extended to cover misdescription of property. It is also my intention, as soon as the consultation required under the Estate Agents Act 1979 can be carried out and the results considered, to make and lay before Parliament orders under section 3 and regulations under section 18 to deal with misdescription of property, forced sales, misleading terms and other abuses identified in the report and to add to the list of offences which can trigger banning action against estate agents.

  I have read with interest the analysis in the report of the arguments for and against licensing and use of the power under section 22 to prescribe minimum qualifications for estate agents. I agree with the Director General's view that the case for these measures has not been made out. This finding on section 22 is in line with the conclusion I reached in the review of estate agency which I completed last year and also with the conclusion reached by the Consumers Association in its recent report on estate agency.

  I have noted with regret the Director General's conclusion that there is little prospect of agreement in the immediate future on an industrywide voluntary code of practice. However, I consider that the package of legislation I propose deals with the main problems. I welcome the Director General's undertaking that his

  Directives in the White Paper programme which are not yet required to have entered into force

  Subject

  Required date of entry into force

  Remarks

  Part one: The removal of physical barriers

  1 Control of Goods

  2 Veterinary and phytosanitary controls

  1 Microbiological controls (meats, poultry, red meat)

  Dir 85/323

  Time for implementation not yet fixed

  Dir 85/324

  2 Mince meat and similar products imported from third countries

  Dir 88/657

  1 January 1992

  3 Zoo technical standards applicable to breeding animals of the porcine species

  Dir 88/661

  1 January 1991

  4 Modification of Directive 77/99/EEC on meat products

  Dir 88/658

  1 July 1990

  — Amendment to Directive 74/63 on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition (maximum pesticide residues in animal feedingstuffs)

  Dir 87/519

  3 December 1990

  Implementing regulations have been made and will come in to operation on 3 December 1990

  5 Imports of meat products from third countries (animal and public health rules)

  Dir 89/227

  30 June 1990

  6 Pedigree animals (sheep and goats)

  Dir 89/361

  1 January 1991

  7 Hygiene and health problems affecting the production and the placing on the market of egg products

  Dir 89/437

  31 December 1991

  8 Embryos of farm animals

  Dir 89/556

  1 January 1991

  1006
  Office will maintain contact with the industry with a view to resuming discussions on a voluntary code of practice if the climate of opinion becomes more favourable.

  Telephone Charges
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing the comparable costs in sterling of a local telephone call in each European Community country, making clear where the minimum duration per unit cost of such calls varies.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no standard measure which enables comparisons to be made between the cost of local calls in different European Community countries. For example, the average local call area is particularly large in the United Kingdom, which means that many calls at local rates here would be charged at long distance rates in other countries.

  However, OFTEL has produced figures (which include exchanges line rentals and long distance calls) comparing both the cost of an average resident's telephone bill and the cost of an average business bill in the four European countries which are most readily comparable in terms of population and size. Taking the United Kingdom (British Telecom only) as index 100 (and excluding VAT) the figures are as follows:

  Residential basket

  Business basket

  United Kingdom

  100

  100

  France

  76

  83

  Italy

  97

  120

  Federal Republic of Germany

  98

  96

  (OFTEL: "International Comparisons of Telecommunications Prices" January 1990)

  European Single Market
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the measures contained in the single market White Paper remain to be implemented.

  Mr. Redwood
  The table lists the single market White Paper measures which have been adopted, and which are not yet required to have entered into force.
  1007

  Subject

  Required date of entry into force

  Remarks

  9 Mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the member states and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of legislation on veterinary and zoo technical matters

  Dir 89/608

  1 July 1991

  10 Veterinary checks in intra-Community trade

  Dir 89/662

  31 December 1991

  11 Marketing of compound feedingstuffs

  Dir 90/44

  22 January 1992

  GATT
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have taken to ensure that the outcome of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT will(a) promote environmentally sustainable development,
  (b) promote food security for the poorest groups in developing countries and (c) decrease the dependence of developing countries on primary commodities.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The Government attach a high priority to the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round, and we are working with our European Community partners to bring this about. Matters under discussion include several of particular interest to developing countries; a successful agreement will therefore help promote trade in the products concerned, and hence the economic development of such countries.

  Cotton Goods
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals to control the dumping of Indian poplin he will put to the EC as part of the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules in relation to textiles.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: Our aim in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations is to secure improvements in the general rules governing anti-dumping action. The European Community has put forward proposals for the amendment of the GATT anti-dumping code, some of which are of particular relevance to the textiles sector. Complaints about the dumping of particular products are best followed up with the European Commission in the normal way by the industry concerned.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funds have been made available to Her Majesty's Government and public bodies by the European Economic Community and its institutions for the purpose of circulating information about the 1992 programme and policies.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: No funds have been made available to Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of circulating information about the 1992 programme and policies. Some pump-priming funds have been made available to some local authority organisations to help in the administration of information on European Community matters more generally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has received to "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" from the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The council was represented at a meeting that I held on 5 April with the Disability Benefits Consortium to discuss "The Way Ahead". We shall give careful consideration to all the council's comments in carrying forward the detailed work on our proposals.

  Benefits, Manchester
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables using the assumptions in his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) of 22 June 1988,Official Report, columns 571-6, but using expenditure and benefit figures appropriate for families in Manchester, together with a column showing the extent of the differences resulting from the April 1988 social security changes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The tables are no longer published, for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 23 February at c.937-38.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish in the Official Report the guidance to be issued on the interpretation of regulation 3(1A) of the Mobility Allowance Regulations 1975.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The guidance which is issued, with report forms, to examining doctors is in the table.

  DEAF/BLIND CLAIMANTS—NOTES FOR EXAMINING DOCTORS
  1. The requirement of the legislation is that there should be a measurable test of BOTH blindness and deafness. The Regulations stipulate that the degree of disablement resulting from the loss of vision amounts to 100 per cent. and that the degree of handicap resulting from loss of hearing amounts to not less than 80 per cent.
  2. An assessment of 100 per cent. blindness is appropriate not only where there is a total lack of vision, but also where there is residual vision. Experience with other benefits indicates that an assessment of 100 per cent. will be appropriate where the vision is found to be less than 6/60, using both eyes whilst glasses are used; or where finger counting is not possible beyond one foot. Depending on the location and circumstances of the examination, possible methods of testing including Snellen's Chart finger-counting or E-test. Please note your findings overleaf.
  3. Hearing should be tested on the basis of simple clinical examination. The test should be a simple instruction or question, shouted from just beyond one metre behind

  1009
  the claimant. As it must test the claimant's need to understand, rather than just the ability to react to the shout by turning the head, it should be in a form such as "Please lift your right arm" or "How old are you?" If possible the test should be conducted outdoors so that the effect of loss of hearing on the claimant's outdoor mobility problems can be properly assessed. Where an outdoor test is not possible the results should be related to the outdoors. Experience with other benefits indicates that an assessment of 80 per cent. will be appropriate where the claimant is unable to hear a shout beyond 1 metre using both ears (with aids). Please record your assessment overleaf.
  4. Also, the examining doctor needs to assess the ability of the deaf/blind person to walk to any intended or required destination whilst out of doors without the assistance of another person. If a walking test is appropriate it should be carried out on the kind of surface which the claimant would normally have to cope with outdoors. Where this in not possible, the examining doctor should use medical judgement to assess walking ability in such outdoor circumstances, bearing in mind the effects of both blindness and deafness.
  5. Unless it is clear beyond doubt that the specific criteria for deaf/blind people are satisfied a full test of walking ability should be undertaken (this should include balance tests, if it seems that a person needs physical support to walk). This will make it possible for a decision to be made as to whether a person qualifies under any of the criteria which apply to disabled people generally if the criteria for deaf/blind people are not fulfilled.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in child benefit since 1987.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply of 2 April, Official Report, c. 486]: My reply was found to be incomplete; the full reply is as follows.

  Child benefit has remained payable at £7·25 per week for each child since April 1987.

  We have however since then devoted considerable extra resources totalling some £350 million in real terms to the least well-off families—those on income support and family credit—who do not gain from an increase in child benefit of itself and who are now therefore better off than they would have been if child benefit had been uprated.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to instruct(a) Her Majesty's Government's representative on the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and (b) the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations, to initiate investigations at the International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations, respectively, into the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Iraq is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and as such has undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons. We expect Iraq to abide by her international legal obligations. We are currently considering, in consultation with interested parties, how to strengthen barriers against proliferation. We do not, however, envisage taking the specific action outlined by the hon. Member.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report on Hong Kong will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Maude
  The report was laid before Parliament and published on 18 April. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the cessation of exports of Semtex from Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As I informed the House on 10 April 1989,Official Report, column 360, we had been told that Czechoslovakia ceased exporting Semtex in 1982. We have now received further clarification from the Czechoslovak authorities, who have explained that the last foreign trade exports had indeed been in 1982, but that in addition "special deliveries" to the GDR and Hungary had continued in the context of Warsaw pact commitments. These deliveries were distinct from normal foreign trade operations and had been covered by a guarantee of non re-export to third countries. They have informed us that all exports of Semtex, including the "special deliveries", ended in 1989. We are in discussion with the Czechoslovak authorities about past exports of Semtex, and have noted President Havel's statement that about 1,000 tonnes had been exported to Libya.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to district rating valuation officers as to the criteria to be used by them to determine the rateable values on which the uniform business rate is calculated.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. The material contains information confidential to indvidual ratepayers.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any plans to relocate any part of the civil service to north Devon.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 17 January 1990,Official Report, c. 289-90. Departmental Ministers will announce their own decisions on relocation venues once the essential processes of assessment and consultation have been completed.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of the top 30 countries in the world in descending order for gross domestic product per head for the latest available date.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information for the OECD member states is available in the OECD publication "National Accounts,
  1011
  Main Aggregates, volume 1, 1960–1988". Wider coverage is given by the United Nations publication "National Accounts Statistics, Analysis of Main Aggregates, 1986". Both volumes are available in the Library of the House.

  For ranking countries in terms of gross domestic product per head, no fully comparable worldwide official statistics are readily available. For many of the centrally planned economies, the official estimates available are prepared in accordance with United Nations system of material product balances (MPS), which differs from the United Nations system of national accounts (SNA) used to describe market economies.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the report of the financial action task force on money laundering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Major
  The Government welcome the report of the financial action task force which is published today. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The task force was established following the G7 Paris summit in July 1989 to review existing measures against money laundering and to recommend improvements. Experts from 15 countries (G7 countries, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) and the EC Commission, the OECD, the IMF and the bank for international settlements contributed to the work of the task force, with the United Kingdom playing a leading role. The report has three main sections: an assessment of the extent and nature of the problem; a review of existing legal and administrative measures against money laundering; and 40 detailed recommendations for further action.

  The report's recommendations encompass domestic measures implementing the United Nations Vienna convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, improvements in laws and administrative practice relating to institutions dealing with large amounts of cash, and strengthening international co-operation. While acknowledging that the recommendations have no formal legal status, the Government fully endorse them. The priority now is for their implementation in all participating countries. In the United Kingdom, the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 already makes drug money laundering an offence and gives the police and Customs and Excise strong enforcement powers.

  Provisions included in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which received Royal Assent on 5 April, will further strengthen these powers and allow the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations convention. Further measures are also being considered to reinforce our defences against money laundering inside and outside the formal financial sector.

  However, money laundering is an international problem which cannot be tackled by individual countries in isolation; the commitment by the major industrialised countries to strengthen international co-operation in the fight against money laundering is therefore all the more welcome. Our record is good and many of the areas of co-operation covered in the report are already covered by our bilateral agreements to trace, freeze and confiscate the
  1012
  proceeds of drug trafficking. So far agreements have been signed with 13 countries and negotiations are in progress with several others.

  European Community Contributions
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the payments to European Economic Community institutions less VAT abatement increased from £4,066 million in 1987 to £4,442 million in 1989, as set out in table E of the Central Statistical Office leaflet of 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The increase in the United Kingdom's gross contribution less abatement between 1987 and 1989 reflected an increase of around a quarter in the size of the Community budget. The United Kingdom's share of gross contributions, after abatement, fell from 16·2 per cent. in 1987 to 15·4 per cent. in 1989.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the general Government receipts from European Economic Community funds have fallen from £2,282 million in 1987 to £2,141 million in 1989, as set out in table E of the Central Statistical Office leaflet of 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The fall is mainly due to a reduction in the level of receipts from the structural funds arising from the fact that Community support frameworks were not signed until the end of 1989. As a result, some payments were delayed. Receipts in 1990 are expected to be significantly higher than in 1987 or 1989.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement explaining the nature and extent, in respect of each calendar year, of the increase in payment to the European Economic Community in respect of previous years following the annual reassessment, as referred to on page 3 of the Central Statistical Office leaflet of 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: Contributions in respect of VAT own resources and the GNP-based fourth resource are paid by member states to the Commission on the basis of agreed economic forecasts. Each year an adjustment is made to contributions paid in previous years to take account of outturn information. As such, the adjustment can be either positive or negative.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn of 29 March,Official Report, column 274, if he will now make arrangements to deposit in the Library copies of each scheme for the local management of schools which he has approved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Yes.

  History Teaching
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a list of all individuals, organisations and others whom he will consult in respect of the recommendations in the final report of the national curriculum history working group.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  They are too numerous to list individually but include LEAs, teacher associations, religious bodies—including the General Synod of the Church of England board of education and the Board of Deputies of British Jews—and subject associations such as the Historical Association, the Royal Historical Society, the Primary History Association and the History Curriculum Association. Others consulted include for example the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Childrens Bureau.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Romania
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Moray of 27 February,Official Report, column 111, he will list in the Official Report what further medical supplies, food, clothes and other non-financial aid Her Majesty's Government have provided to Romania.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  Since my hon. Friend's answer on 27 February, column 111, we have donated AIDS testing equipment, provided small contributions to British charities caring for Romanian children and, as I announced on 5 April, column 734, £500,000 to the World Health Organisations programme for the Romanian health service. We have also donated 118 tonnes of paper (worth £100,000) for the use of Romanian political parties during the election campaign.

DEFENCE

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the cost of the proposed over-the-horizon radar facility at Brawdy, Wales, will be borne by the NATO infrastructure fund.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This question will be addressed once it has been decided whether to retain the over-the-horizon radar as a permanent operational facility in the United Kingdom.

  Residential Accommodation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's houses or flats have been empty for three months, six months, nine months or longer; and how many of these are situated at Medhurst.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not maintained in the precise form requested. As at 30 November 1989, the 1014
  latest date for which figures are available, 8,296 service married quarters in the United Kingdom, both houses and flats, had been vacant for under one year and 4,127 for one year and over. In addition, as at 31 December 1989, 103 Ministry of Defence civilian houses and flats in the United Kingdom had been vacant for under six months and 120 for six months and over. Many of these properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to entitled occupants who were due to move in shortly and others were in the process of disposal.

  We have been unable to identify the location to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his question but, if he will write to me with further details, I will attempt to provide the information requested.

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his review of the future of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 11 July last year at columns 495-96, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) announced that he was minded to accept the recommendation that a service animal centre should be formed. I am now able to confirm the intention to form such a centre, under unified command. For the foreseeable future, however, this will operate at the existing separate locations of RAVC Melton Mowbray, RAF Newton and RAF Syerston, because reduced estimates of disposal value have affected the recommendation to vacate and sell all the land at Melton Mowbray.

  The service animal centre will be a candidate for defence support agency status, but the centre will in any case be expected to build on the savings in running costs referred to by my hon. Friend in his earlier answer.

WALES

  M4
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to purchase land along the missing gap of the M4 between Earlswood and Baglan to enable additional lanes to be constructed if traffic flows exceed current forecasts.

  Mr. Roberts
  If needed, any necessary land would be acquired at the appropriate time.

  Conservation Sites
  Mrs. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the number of sites which meet the criteria for designation and protection under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds, the number of sites so designated, the name of the site next to be designated and the date he expects to designate it;

  (2) when he last designated an area under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance; if he will indicate the area which is next to be designated, and when he expects to designate it.

  Mr. Roberts
  The designation of special protection areas and Ramsar sites is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Welsh sites are designated in consultation with me.
  1015
  I understand that the NCC has so far identified 14 potential SPAs in Wales, of which three have been designated. The last Ramsar designation in Wales, Cors Fochno and Dyfi, was on 5 January 1986.

  I cannot forecast which site will be designated next nor when. Government officials are currently carrying out consultation on a number of sites in both England and Wales.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many general practitioners and general practitioner practices in Wales have requested information from his Department about practice budgets;

  (2) how many general practitioners and general practitioner practices in each family practitioner committee area in Wales have requested information from his Department about practice budgets.

  Mr. Grist
  The booklet "Funding General Practice— The Programme for the Introduction of General practice Budgets" was mailed directly to all Welsh general practitioners in early January 1990. Effectively, therefore, all Welsh GPs have received basic information regarding the scheme. Comprehensive records of requests for supplementary information are not available.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each health authority in Wales(a) the standstill budget for that authority in 1990–91 as estimated by that authority, (b) the standstill budget for that authority as estimated by the Welsh Office and (c) the figure made available by his Department for that authority for 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  It is not clear what the hon. Gentleman means by the term "standstill budget". The initial 1990–91 revenue allocations to health authorities in Wales by comparison with their final allocations for 1989–90 (subject to end-of-year adjustments) are as follows:

  DHA

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  Clwyd

  110·175

  116·584

  East Dyfed

  68·060

  74·897

  Gwent

  129·520

  137·968

  Gwynedd

  65·436

  69·164

  Mid Glamorgan

  150·828

  161·446

  Pembrokeshire

  25·123

  28·379

  Powys

  30·758

  33·393

  South Glamorgan

  179·064

  188·955

  West Glamorgan

  109·449

  119·263

  The figures for 1990–91 take account of the full-year effect of all developments funded on a part-year basis last year before 31 December 1989. The full-year effect of developments funded subsequently during 1989–90 will be taken into account in adjustments to the initial 1990–91 allocations which have yet to be notified to authorities along with those centrally directed developments for 1990–91 which have yet to be allocated.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the approved practice of health authorities in Wales regarding the separation of capital and revenue funds(a) under Government regulations, (b) in respect of
  1016
  guidance issued by his Department and (c) under independent guidance from other bodies including CIPFA and the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Grist
  The definition of capital expenditure which is currently applied by district health authorities in the separation of capital and revenue is as follows:

  Capital expenditure comprises spending on:
  1.1 Acquisition of land and premises, lump sum payments for related rights (including capitalised rents), and payments made under the Land Compensation Act 1973 (including payments to local authorities for rehousing persons displaced by National Health Service acquisition); and associated fees;
  1.2 Individual works schemes costing £15,000 or more (including related fees and equipment—but excluding land) for the initial provision, extension, improvement or adaptation (including upgrading), renewal, replacement or demolition of buildings, building elements (eg. roofs), external works, engineering services or plans;
  1.3 Complete individual items of equipment costing £7,500 or more before the deduction of any sum obtained for any item replaced (except where the item is associated with a works scheme when paragraph 1.2 above applies regardless of cost). This includes all categories of equipment not associated with works scemes referred to in paragraph 1.2 above, other than vehicles.
  1.4 All purchases of vehicles regardless of cost; and
  1.5 Pay, and directly attributable expenses such as travelling allowances, of works officers and all the staff (including typists, clerical and administrative staff) of their departments who are fully or mainly engaged on spending charged to capital.
  2. Spending on maintaining capital assets in effective working order, or in good repair, is charged to revenue, unless it falls within the above definition of capital spending. For example, interior or exterior redecorating, or repointing of brickwork, would be revenue whatever the cost.
  3. The definition of a scheme given in the "Glossary of Hospital Building Cost Control Terminology" should be used in applying the definition of capital spending. Where the provision or replacement of certain pieces of equipment comprises two or more separate and distinct interdependent units (for example electro-diathermy equipment) doubt may arise; each interdependent unit should be regarded, for the purpose of the financial limit in paragraph 1.3 above as a complete individual item.
  4. The whole cost of schemes with a mixture of capital and revenue type spending should be charged to revenue unless the estimated capital type spending exceeds the limits set out in paragraph 1; then the capital type element should be charged to capital."
  All other expenditure not covered by the above definition is charged to revenue.

  As noted in a separate reply to the hon. Gentleman of today's date in respect of the use of capital receipts in meeting revenue funding requirements, district health authorities in Wales are permitted a degree of in-year flexibility between revenue and capital provision.

  Neither CIPFA nor the Audit Commission has any locus in issuing guidance to health authorities on such matters.

SCOTLAND

  Pensioners
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of single pensioner households in Scotland as a percentage of all households in Scotland.
  1017
  Mr. Rifkind
  At 30 June 1989 approximately 16 per cent. of households in Scotland consisted of one person of pensionable age.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent estimate of(a) the number of pensioners in Scotland, (b) pensioner-headed households in Scotland, (c) single pensioner households and (d) pensioner couple households.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The most recent estimates for Scotland are:

  Number

  (a) Number of persons of pensionable age at 30 June 1988

  896,000

  (b) Number of households headed by a person of pensionable age at 30 June 1989

  582,000

  (c) Number of households with one person of pensionable age at 30 June 1989

  314,000

  (d) Number of households with 2 persons of pensionable age at 30 June 1987

  152,000

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Boundary Commission for Scotland intends to conduct any further interim reviews of parliamentary constituencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Boundary Commission for Scotland has informed me that it intends to conduct interim reviews of 10 parliamentary constituencies under section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. The constituencies are as follows:

  Midlothian and Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale;

  North Tayside, Perth and Kinross, and Stirling;

  Motherwell North and Linlithgow; and

  Edinburgh East, East Lothian and Midlothian.

  I understand that the reviews have arisen from alterations to local authority boundaries which those of the parliamentary constituencies concerned no longer follow exactly.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Scottish councillors, Mrs. Joan Munro and Mrs. Moira McGovern of Queen Margaret college, to discuss representations made to him by, and on behalf of, the speech therapy profession.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: I have nothing to add to the letter that I sent to the hon. Member on 8 April.

  Arts and Design
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure was made by his Department on(a) the arts and (b) design in the last financial year.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: Expenditure by the Scottish Office was £21·015 million in 1988–89 on the three national institutions (the National Library of Scotland, the National Galleries of Scotland and the National Museums of Scotland). Further expenditure of £1·998 million covered assistance to the Scottish Museums Council, the Scottish Film Council, Scottish Film Production Fund and various arts and cultural organisations.
  1018
  The Scottish Office does not directly fund design, although I understand that the Scottish Development Agency does, from time to time, support various design projects. Details of the agency's expenditure on such projects are not separately recorded.

  Local Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the estimated charge on the basis of current expenditure(a) per household and (b) per capita for each Scottish district if a system of local income tax were to be introduced.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: Local income tax bills per household and per capita would depend on the taxable income of each household and person in every district in Scotland. This information is not available to my Department.

  On the basis of the estimates of local income tax rates which were provided on 27 February in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), the tax bill for a single person on Scottish average earnings would be as shown in the table.

  Authority

  Tax bill single person

  (£)

  Borders

  683

  Berwickshire

  659

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  683

  Roxburgh

  683

  Tweeddale

  691

  Central

  780

  Clackmannan

  836

  Falkirk

  716

  Stirling

  860

  Dumfries and Galloway

  683

  Annandale and Eskdale

  708

  Nithsdale

  683

  Stewartry

  675

  Wigtown

  683

  Fife

  836

  Dunfermline

  812

  Kirkcaldy

  828

  North East Fife

  892

  Grampian

  780

  Aberdeen

  844

  Banff and Buchan

  764

  Gordon

  732

  Kincardine and Deeside

  699

  Moray

  724

  Highland

  635

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  651

  Caithness

  627

  Inverness

  627

  Lochaber

  659

  Nairn

  635

  Ross and Cromarty

  667

  Skye and Lochalsh

  627

  Sutherland

  571

  Lothian

  1,061

  East Lothian

  1,037

  Edinburgh

  1,085

  Midlothian

  1,013

  West Lothian

  997

  Strathclyde

  828

  Argyll and Bute

  772

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  828

  1019

  Authority

  Tax bill single person

  (£)

  Clydebank

  828

  Clydesdale

  836

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  764

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  764

  Cunninghame

  772

  Dumbarton

  828

  East Kilbride

  884

  Eastwood

  780

  Glasgow

  852

  Hamilton

  812

  Inverclyde

  812

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  748

  Kyle and Carrick

  852

  Monklands

  812

  Motherwell

  844

  Renfrew

  820

  Strathkelvin

  828

  Tayside

  860

  Angus

  812

  Dundee

  900

  Perth and Kinross

  828

  Orkney

  410

  Shetland

  314

  Western Isles

  474

  Scotland

  836

  Notes:

  1. The estimate of average gross earnings has been taken from the 1989 new earnings survey and is the average of the male and female full-time adult earnings not affected by absence at April 1989.

  2. In calculating the tax bill for a single adult, it is assumed that earnings are the only source of income and that only personal tax allowances apply.

EMPLOYMENT

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received regarding the future of skill centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received representations from hon. Members, some skill centre staff, and trade unions.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what amount Astra Training Services has paid for each of the skill centres in Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  Terms of sale have been agreed with Astra Training Services Limited covering 46 skill centres, together with the Skills Training Agency's head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges, and involving a payment from the Government to Astra in respect of the entire business of some £11 million. All four skill centres located in Wales are included in the sale package.

  Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have completed employment training courses; and if he will give a breakdown of(a) the vocational qualifications they obtained and (b) the destinations of those who left the programme.
  1020
  Mr. Nicholls
  Thirty-five per cent. of people leaving employment training during July 1989 to October 1989 completed their agreed training: of these 51 per cent. entered jobs or full-time further education or training; 43 per cent. were unemployed and 6 per cent. were doing voluntary work or something else. Information about vocational qualifications obtained is not yet available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of training managers have been approved to award qualifications.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Agency does not approve training managers to award qualifications.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes there will be in Ministers' decision-making powers on training in 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: Ministers' powers to make arrangements for training are derived from the Employment and Training Act 1973 as amended by the Employment Act 1988. From April 1991 (subject to parliamentary approval) it is intended that similar powers will in Scotland be exercised by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, subject to approval of their plans by the Government under the terms of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament.

  Earnings Comparisons
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the disparity of wages between men and women; and what plans the Government have to address this disparity.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This disparity is due to a range of factors including differences in educational qualifications arid skills, occupational levels, occupational choices and work experience. Take home pay is also affected by women doing more part-time work and less overtime than men. Equal pay legislation has helped considerably to reduce any disparity based on sex discrimination and the Government are firmly committed to eliminating unjustifiable discrimination in pay. The Equal Pay Act 1970 (as amended) provides a real avenue of redress for any woman who thinks she is being denied equal pay because of her sex.

  Moreover, the increasing number of women entering higher paid jobs in "non-traditional" areas of employment will work its way through and further reduce the difference. The Government both welcome and encourage this.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the consequences of the general level of rent increases in the private, council and housing association sectors for the supply of rented property.

  Mr. Chope
  The deregulation of rents for new private tenancies will encourage landlords to invest: so far proposals for between 6,000 and 7,000 new assured
  1021
  tenancies have been reported under the business expansion scheme. Deregulation of rents for new housing association tenancies has enabled private finance to be used to supplement public expenditure, and so increase output of new subsidised rented housing; we estimate that some 13,000 additional units over three years will result. In the local authority sector our aim is to move towards a pattern of rents that better reflects the value of the accommodation provided and enables authorities to maintain their stock in good condition. Both housing association and local authority rents continue to benefit from substantial subsidies; and housing benefit is available to tenants who would otherwise have difficulty affording their rents.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to any changes in the basis of community charge for 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  The underlying principle of the community charge is that almost all adults should pay something towards the costs of local services. There are no proposals for changing that principle.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to local authorities on the procedures to be adopted for the levying of the community charge on properties which become vacant and available for sale on the death of the home owner; if he will take steps to prevent local councils from levying a double community charge in cases where the properties have not become available through the process of probate or where the ownership of the property is subject to division in consequence of the terms of the will of the deceased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The Secretary of State has prescribed that no standard charge is payable in respect of unoccupied property which has become vacant on the death of the owner, and with respect to which no grant of probate or letters of administration have been made or less than three months have elapsed since the day on which a grant of probate or letters of administration were made. Local authorities have discretion to extend this period or set a standard charge multiplier lower than the maximum for such a period as may be specified by the authority.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing(a) the total amount of community charge benefit to be paid in 1990–91 and (b) the expected community charge benefit caseload for 1990–91 on the basis of (i) the Government's estimates of community charge levels and (ii) the actual levels of community charge which have been set.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 March 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm 1014) stated that £1·82 billion would be spent on community charge benefit in 1990–91, and that there would be an average of 7 ·9 million community charge benefit cases in 1990–91 on a Great Britain basis. More recent estimates suggest that £2·5 billion will be spent on community charge benefit in 1990–91, and that the number of benefit cases will be in excess of 8 million on a Great Britain basis which, since a couple are treated as one benefit unit, equates to about 10
  1022
  million individuals. The caseload estimates mean that about one in four of all individual charge payers will be helped by community charge benefit.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing actual or, where not available, budgeted expenditure for all local authorities in England and Wales in each of the last three years, and the proposed expenditure in 1990–91, showing percentage increase, for each authority, and giving total expenditure for all authorities in each year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Total expenditure for English authorities in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 is £25,686, £27,736 and £29,563 respectively. The figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are latest estimates of outturn expenditure, where available, and the figure for 1989–90 is local authority budgeted expenditure. Information is not yet available for 1990–91.

  I am arranging for details of budgeted expenditure for individual local authorities in England to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The information relating to Welsh local authorities is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Control of Pollution Act
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lay before Parliament the regulations relating to part II of the Control of Pollution Act.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The majority of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 was repealed by, and substantially re-enacted by, the Water Act 1989. We have no plans to lay any further regulations under part II of the 1974 Act.

  Housing
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the proportion of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1990–91 on average spent on each unit of rented accommodation; what is the equivalent figure for housing for sale; and if he will provide the same figures for the two succeeding years where planned levels of approved development programme have been identified.

  Mr. Chope
  Detailed information about the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1990–91 and provisional plans for the following two years was made available by the Housing Corporation in January 1990, and I am arranging for details to be provided to my hon. Friend direct. The Housing Corporation is currently reassessing plans for 1990–91 and subsequent years in the light of more up-to-date information on housing associations' development programmes.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association projects were funded by the Housing Corporation in Liverpool in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  This is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the corporation to respond to my hon. Friend direct.

  Developers
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to protect home owners from undue harassment from developers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have today issued a consultation paper seeking views on a proposal to include a statement of owners' property rights on the certificates which have to be served on the owners of land which is the subject of a planning application. The paper also invites comments on proposals to amend the General Development Order 1988 to provide general planning permissions(a) to install equipment for driver information systems, (b) to install postal pouch boxes, (c) to install liquefied petroleum gas tanks for dwelling houses, (d) so that industrial and warehouse extensions erected as permitted development under schedule 2, part 8, can be used for workplace-related social, recreational and welfare purposes; and on a proposal to amend the Use Classes Order 1987 so as to include launderettes and dry cleaning establishments within the shops use class (A1). This last proposal is not associated with the independent research into the effects of the order which is being carried out on behalf of the Department.

  London Demonstration
  Mr. Hattersley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the organisers of the 31 March poll tax demonstration asked permission to hold that demonstration in Hyde park; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: The organisers applied on 18 January for permission to hold the rally in Trafalgar square. After discussions with the Metropolitan police permission was granted on 7 March. The details of the route of the proposed march from the assembly point in Kennington park to Trafalgar square were discussed and agreed with the police. On Monday 26 March the organisers asked my Department for permission to hold the rally in Hyde park. The Metropolitan police were contacted about this very late request but no formal decision was taken. At a meeting later that day between the police and the organisers the request was not pursued and plans for holding the rally in Trafalgar square were finalised. On Tuesday 27 March the organisers withdrew their request to hold the rally in Hyde park.

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

Airport Capacity: CAA Report
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can now announce the date on which they expect to receive the report from the Civil Aviation Authority, delayed from July 1989, on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity in the period to 2005.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has said that he will be advising my right honourable friend this July.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, too, have read the press release from the CAA? I wonder whether he can help us a little further in the matter. Does he recall that a year ago the chairman of the CAA wrote to The Times newspaper stressing the urgency of reaching a solution in such matters, but that subsequently he requested a delay of 12 months? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government anticipate the report being received at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of July?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are capable of anticipating all sorts of things. However, on this matter I cannot go any further than I have already done. The chairman of the CAA has said that he will be advising my right honourable friend this July. I have no further information.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister has not gone anywhere at all, never mind making any progress, in the matter. Is he aware that I am asking him for specific information? Is it not possible for the Government, who asked for the report to be produced in the first place, to request that it be made available early in July so that the House may have an opportunity to look at it before the long Summer Recess and before a delay of some four months takes place?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not find my Answer to be satisfactory. Of course, I am becoming rather used to that situation. However, I at least gave a factual reply to her Question. The Government fully recognise the importance of the subject. That is why it is important to ensure that the report is properly completed. The noble Baroness will no doubt take as early an opportunity as possible to debate the CAA's recommendations.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that IATA published on 10th April a policy document
104
based on a two-year review of the problem of European air congestion? Although I have not had an opportunity to read the document—I hope to be able to do so shortly—I should like to ask whether it would not be a foolish policy to consider the CAA's report and not consider the recommendations of the policy document of IATA at the same time. To do anything else would seem to me to be rather foolish.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the Department of Transport has received the IATA report which it is in the process of considering. I shall certainly pass on his suggestion to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I should tell the Minister that I have read a summary of the report. Is he able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that it is not the slightest use always recommending a delay until something else is done? Is he aware that the last time I asked this question the noble Lord again recommended a delay until some other action was taken? Finally, do the Government not understand that most people believe that there is no real desire in the Government's mind to make progress on these matters and that nothing he says will change that opinion?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the noble Baroness's remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say in reply. However, I must tell the noble Baroness that the department is at present considering separately ways to take forward the recommendations at a working level when they are received. There is no doubting the fact that the report will not lie dormant. It will be acted upon as soon as it is received.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Viscount pass on to the noble Baroness my own view that although we do not want delay, on the other hand we do not want to find that a decision has been taken on a CAA report when the recommendations of the IATA policy document may have far-reaching consequences on that report? Surely that is an important matter.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree.

Gibraltar-Algeciras Ferry Service
3.11 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government: What action the European Commission has taken following the Government's request that infraction proceedings be commenced under the treaty in relation to the Algeciras to Gibraltar ferry service, given the regulation establishing freedom to provide maritime transport services.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we await an answer from the European Commission to our request.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Can he say whether the Commission has invited Spain to submit observations as regards the breach of the treaty in the form of a mise en demeure letter under Article 169?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that until the Commission has replied to our letter I am unable to say what action has been taken. We have asked the Commission when we can expect a reply to our letter and we hope to receive one shortly.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what explanation of this unfriendly proceeding has been furnished to Her Majesty's Government by the Spanish Government?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I understand it the situation is that we should like to see both agreements implemented. We shall do our best to try to achieve that if we possibly can.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the Spanish Government who have breached the treaty? Can the Minister say whether the Spanish Government have given any defence or sent any representations to the Commission? Further, can the Minister say what is the attitude of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Mr. Bassano, on the matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in reply to the second question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, it is my understanding that the Gibraltar Government do not wish to implement the airport agreement. As regards the first question, I do not think that I can say any more than that we await a reply to our letter from the Commission. At the moment, we must leave it at that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Spanish Government have made no response of any kind?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not in a position to say anything regarding communications which may have taken place between the Commission and the Spanish Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend now answer the question to which, with respect, he did not reply? It concerned what explanation the Spanish Government have given of their conduct to Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot add to what I have said. We have approached the Commission with a request that infraction proceedings be commenced under the treaty. The ball is now in the Commission's court and we await a reply.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, will the Minister take it from me that when I saw the Chief Minister in Gibraltar on 20th March he was extremely keen that the ferry service should start again as soon as possible? Furthermore, can the Minister inform the House on what date the Commission received the
106
formal complaint from Her Majesty's Government? Taking the matter a little further, would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to consider approaching the European Court of Justice if no reasoned opinion is given by the Commission within three months of its receiving the formal complaint?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can inform my noble friend that our letter to the Commission was dated 9th February. We shall consider whether to bring a case before the European Court of Justice and whether to try to enlist the support of any other member states at the appropriate time. We should not exclude the possibility of doing so if such action were likely to be helpful.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I regret rising again but it is difficult for the House to make a judgment in view of the paucity of information that the noble Lord is able to give. I refer particularly to any Spanish response that may have been made to the action that we have taken in the matter. Is the Minister able to say whether the Commission has received any communication at all from the Spanish Government? It is depressing that a partner within the Community should behave in this way—if it is standing still and doing nothing.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my understanding of the matter is that there are two agreements under the Brussels process. Both date from 1987. One is the agreement on the airport, the other on the ferry service. These are not formally linked to each other. However, the Gibraltar Government will not implement the airport agreement and therefore Spain will not implement the ferry agreement. Not implementing the ferry agreement falls foul, in our view, of the European Community regulations; hence our approach to the Commission.

EC Legislation: British Sausages
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether recent proposals of the EC Commission would ban in 1993 the British sausage, as composed and prepared at the present.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government will oppose any proposals by the Commission which are unnecessary and would serve only to increase costs and reduce consumer choice. The Government will defend the great British sausage, minced meat and burgers to the end.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her robust reply. Does she agree that the preparation of this traditional British delicacy is different from practices in other countries but is not a danger to health? Is she aware that she will have the wholehearted support of many Members of this House in her bid to save the British banger?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I submit that the UK. without bangers would be like France without champagne.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: Chacun à son goût, my Lords. Separate provision could be made for minced meat which is to be consumed raw. Appropriate labelling to indicate whether products are meant for cooking or consumption in the raw state would inform and protect consumers. There are no hygiene risks from the present British sausage, mince or burgers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Franco-German axis in the persons of Messrs. Kohl and Mitterrand is in the process of mixing a black pudding for this country and the EC in the form not only of economic and monetary union but now of political union? Will she ask her right honourable friend the Prime Minister when she attends the Dublin conference next weekend to tell her European partners that we shall not allow any interference with British sausages, nor will we compromise the independence of this nation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord put his question in a rather complicated way. I feel sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will read Hansard, as I am told she always does. As I have said, there are no sound hygiene reasons for these restrictions, particularly when products are meant to be cooked. They would raise costs and reduce consumer choice. The single market is not designed for that kind of measure. Such rules on composition have no place in a measure which is concerned with hygiene and raw meat.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government may find an ally at long last in Europe in the Germans, in that they have many more sausages of greater complexity than we have? Perhaps the Germans will co-operate with us in this matter.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes and no, my Lords. I believe it is the Irish and the Spanish who have the same kind of composition in some of their sausages as we do.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the right response to these proposals is the admirable one suggested by her noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon in the correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph on Easter Monday, which cannot be repeated here as the language was somewhat unparliamentary?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I did not read it.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will take assurance that this side of the House is in total support of the Government's endeavours in this matter. Will she say whether,
108
despite the most valiant endeavours of her colleague the Minister responsible for food in Brussels, if we lose the day to such an extent that we are embarrassed by the Commission's action in this regard, there will be a defence for us in the final analysis in the Cassis de Dijon judgment of the European Court, thus protecting the British sausage?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that that is more a question for the Foreign Office. However, I realise that I reply for the Government. The Government will oppose any unnecessary restrictions and welcome the support of the industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission. Separate provision could be made for minced meat which is to be consumed raw. Appropriate labelling could indicate whether products are meant to be cooked or are intended for consumption raw and would inform and protect consumers. If all else fails, I hope that labelling would provide a means for us to continue.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, given the extreme variation in what passes for a sausage, from something which is almost entirely filled with bread to something which is almost entirely filled with meat, is there such a thing as the British sausage, and if so what is it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, of course there is such a thing as the British sausage. Some people like a sausage with herbs, and the sausage one eats depends on the recipe one favours.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the previous Question revealed that the European Commission has still not replied to a letter sent to it by the Government months ago. Nevertheless, the Commission has the temerity to tell us what to do with our own sausage. Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, not much.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present situation seems to be bringing to life an episode from the television programme "Yes, Minister" in which the British sausage was threatened? Will she comment on rumours of an equally serious threat to the haggis?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall do so with pleasure. The haggis is boiled before sale and is not subject therefore to these proposals. We are equally determined to protect the haggis should the need arise.

Community Charge Capping
3.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria were used to select the local authorities whose community charges are to be capped.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the principles adopted for the designation of authorities in England for charge capping were as follows. An authority's budget was judged to be excessive if it exceeded its standard spending assessment or SSA by at least 12-5 per cent. and by at least £75 per adult. But an authority was desigriated for capping only where its overspend per adult above the 12-5 per cent. £75 limit of excessiveness was at least £26 per adult.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that to any fair minded person those criteria seem very strange when some Labour authorities are spending considerably less than some Conservative authorities which are levying considerably higher charges than they are? When speaking on the charge capping in another place the Secretary of State indicated that he had no doubt that there would be a further parade of bleeding stumps pleading with him on this matter. Is the Minister aware that one of the bleeding stumps that has emerged is the Secretary of State's own constituency, where small businesses are now up in arms because of the serious effect that the present financial arrangements will have on them? Can we therefore look forward to the Secretary of State finding other criteria to get him off the hook in his own constituency?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State looked carefully at producing what he felt was a suitable level of capping. I should have thought that 12·5 per cent. and £75 per adult are straightforward figures rather than convenient ones. If the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question on the uniform business rate, which I believe he was referring to with regard to my right honourable friend, I shall be more than happy to answer it when I see it on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many families, particularly large families, will find themselves in extremely difficult financial circumstances, whether the boroughs in which they live are capped or not? Have the Government anything in mind to help these families who will be in difficult financial circumstances when the poll tax gets under way? Will some help be provided at least to alleviate their suffering?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are well aware; that different circumstances exist in different boroughs. That is why we have the system of SSAs. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the Government's contribution in Lambeth, for example, is £1,358 per adult per annum compared with £485 in the borough of Bromley.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Barnsley is being charge capped and expects to face a cut of £10 million? Why is that? Is he not aware that Barnsley is an area of high unemployment and consequently many people are on social security and live in poverty and distress? Therefore the social needs in that area are great. A
110
cut of £10 million will mean more distress and will be seen as a punishment to that community. On what basis does the Secretary of State for the Environment consider a cut of £10 million to be "reasonable and appropriate", as he stated in a letter to the local authority in Barnsley?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should repeat to the noble Lord the reply that I have already given which showed that the range in the amount of money involved in an SSA is considerable. I refer again to the figure of £485 and to a figure as high as £1,358. The figure in Barnsley was £142 million. It dropped to £132 million because Barnsley was one of the 21 authorities which came within the criteria set by my right honourable friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as Reading, Maidenhead and Wokingham in the Tory-controlled county council of Berkshire are all levying more than £450 per adult in poll tax, why has Berkshire not been charge capped?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the simple fact is that the critiera were set on a similar basis to those which existed before under the former grant related expenditure scheme. We think that we have set the criteria at a fair level. They apply equally to all authorities. Berkshire did not fall into the category that other authorities did.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Does the Minister not think that it is for the people to decide whether they are paying too much rather than the Government? In May people will be able to tell councils whether they consider they are paying too much by not voting for them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is a fact that people had no chance to make any statement at the ballot box with regard to the first setting of the community charge.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister was very wise to gabble his first Answer to my noble friend Lord Dean because he knows that it was incomprehensible. That is evidenced by the fact that no one from his Benches has sought to join in. Are there not three much simpler ways in which the Government could have gone about poll tax capping if they insist on doing so? They could have done it on the basis of increased spending, but that would have resulted in Berkshire being poll tax capped and not Brent; they could have based it on the increased bill for any individual, but that would have resulted in Dartford and Leominister being poll tax capped but not Haringey; or they could have done it on the absolute level of the poll tax, but that would have resulted in Windsor and Maidenhead being capped and not Calderdale. Is it not evident that the Government are searching for difficult and complicated formulae in order to avoid simple justice?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord always produces seductive arguments. I could equally reply to him that we could have decided not to exclude

111
overspending by the Inner London Education Authority, but that would have affected many Labour authorities which would have been capped had we not done so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government's present system recognises the fact that different authorities have both different requirements and different resource bases? Is that not what my noble friend has said to members of the Opposition who persist in talking about absolute terms which bear no relation to the circumstances on the ground?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is true that occasionally, if I do not look at my brief I find myself beginning to believe that all authorities are assessed on the same basis. Then when I look back at my brief I am reminded that there are huge and generous concessions to take account of local difficulties.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider his actions after the outcome of the elections next month? Is it not up to the public to decide whether they want additional services, and if they are prepared to pay for them they should vote for them at the ballot box?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is why we introduced the community charge.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord either confirm or deny that the average overspending by Conservative-controlled councils in this country is 31 per cent. and yet not one of them has suffered poll tax capping? Is that just a coincidence?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, a number of percentages have been bandied about in the very large number of questions which I have answered from this Dispatch Box over the past few months. My right honourable friend chose a figure which was broadly similar, on an assessment basis, to that under the old system. The fact that the authorities concerned are not Conservative-controlled has nothing to do with the fact that the 21 authorities meet the criteria.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Will he confirm or deny that the average spending above the government standard by Conservative-controlled councils is 31 per cent.?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the figure which I can confirm is that the higher rates charged by authorities across the nation would have resulted in a domestic rate increase of some 30 per cent. That is why a large number of people who have not paid rates before have been surprised by the level of local authority expenditure.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question. Will he confirm or deny the figure that I gave?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government's assessment was based on local authority expenditure and not on political considerations. That is why I do not have an answer to the noble Lord's question.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill will be taken.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Regional and District Health Authorities]:
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that appointments under Schedule I do not give prominence to one political party or opinion.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that with this very first amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I should cause party politics to raise its ugly head so very early in our discussion of the Bill. That is particularly regrettable as so many Members of the Committee from all parties have met together on a regular basis in the hope of dealing with the Bill on an entirely non-party and non-political basis and thereby making improvements to it to the benefit of the National Health Service, about which we are all concerned.
However, the matter which I raise is of some importance. It concerns the manner in which people are appointed to very important posts as chairmen of health authorities and so on.
It has been my experience in many years of working in the National Health Service, both in hospitals and in general practice, that over and over again with a change of government very able health authority chairmen suddenly disappear to be replaced by people whose qualifications for office appear to be no more than their own personal political affiliations. It may well be that some of them do a very good job. However, I have always been concerned not so much about the people who have been appointed to the bodies following a change

113
of government but about the people who have been removed from them. Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber will know of people who have given excellent service as chairmen of health authorities in various parts of the country who have suddenly, unexpectedly and regrettably been removed from office for no understandable reason. It may be that in some cases there is a perfectly understandable reason, but if the reason is party politics that is not acceptable. We should say so in the Bill.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, added his name to my amendment. I hasten to say that it is not aimed at one political party. I am sure that all political parties have been guilty of using their right to make appointments in a way which has been pDlitically advantageous. I certainly know that the Conservative Party has done so recently in relatiol to some committees. I also believe that the Labour Party did so on occasions. I am prepared to accept that a long time ago the Liberal Government, when there was one, did the same. I recollect that within my lifetime, when I was a small boy, David Lloyd George used patronage to very great political effect. However, that is another matter.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has added his name to the amendment, because this is not a party matter. It is a matter of principle. Appointments to offices of immense importance for the success or failure of the National Health Service—to health authorities, family practitioner committees or the new family health service authorities-should be made on the basis of the suitability for office of the individual concerned rather than his party political affiliation.
My experience of the matter is in part anecdotal. I have looked on from the outside and wondered why A or B had been removed and why they had been replaced by C and D. My noble friend Lady Robson, who served with such great distinction as chairman of a regional health authority, has more personal experience of the matter. She may be able to tell your Lordships' Committee more about the subject.
I hope to hear a favourable response to the amendment when the government spokesman replies I shall say no more at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I am happy to support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I was delighted to see it when it appeared on the Marshalled List. It is a very appropriate amendment with which to start our debate 3. As the noble Lord wisely said, over the past few weeks and months an attempt has been made to agree some measure of all-party approach to some of the amendments which will come later in the course of the Committee stage. Members of the Committee will have looked at some of the amendments and seen how broad is the basis on which they appear.
The principle enunciated by the noble Lord must be right. It must be right that people should be appointed according to their abilities, their
114
experience and their skill and not on the basis of their political party, although there may be times when an incoming Secretary of State would find that appointments have been very unbalanced in a party political sense and he might want to set the balance right. Certainly a Secretary of State taking up his post now would want to do so.
It is important that there should be a balance. The political parties will argue over what should be adopted as their policy to ensure the growth, expansion and improvement in the quality of service for the vast majority of our nation who depend upon the National Health Service. A far higher proportion of Labour voters may be dependent on the National Health Service than Conservative voters, who may be more dependent on the private sector, but we are all dependent on the National Health Service for a range of services which I need not go into. There is nothing wrong with having political arguments about the best way to organise the National Health Service. Although in Committee all the arguments will not be on an all-party basis, some may well appear to be.
There was a recent case in which the current Secretary of State, in appointing health authority chairmen, disposed of most of those with Labour or Liberal connections and brought in a significant number of people of Conservative views, so there is now no balance. I suppose that the most obvious of such decisions has been that to sack one of London's most efficient, popular and successful district health authority chairmen, Dr. John Dunwoody. I have never heard any criticism in the district of which he is chairman that he has sought to use his political influence to the advantage of his party. He is an absolutely dedicated man and I mention him only because he is a good example. I am not running down his successor whom I happen to know and respect and who is a noted Conservative politician. It is perfectly obvious what is being done and it is utterly wrong.
The policy of any Secretary of State should be to choose the best person. I recognise that it is not always easy to know who is the best person, but it is wrong to make appointments on a political basis. I sought to maintain a balance and to ensure that the right people were chosen. I have to admit when I was Secretary of State that I was often under considerable pressure from my own Back-Benchers to appoint particular people because of their Labour Party position or to sack people because they were Conservatives. I sought not to do that.
I see one good example. I am delighted that Mrs. Julia Cumberlege will shortly arrive in the House. She will be a great addition to the House; she is a woman of great ability. The fact that she is a Conservative has nothing to do with the matter; but she is a noted Conservative. I am proud of that fact because I appointed her. I appointed her because of her abilities, skills and experienceand her appointment has been fully justified.
The noble Baroness may say that the amendment is not necessary. She may say that we must trust her right honourable friend, but in view of recent appointments I do not trust him in that respect. Sometimes there are situations which should be

115
written into a Bill. The noble Baroness should remember that if by any chance—I shall not say mischance—there were to be a change of government, this amendment, if accepted, would apply as much to a Labour Secretary of State as it would to a Conservative one. The principle is right.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say whether he agrees that the use of the word "balance" in his speech is inappropriate in terms of the amendment? I thought that the point of the amendment was that we should get rid of the idea of people being there on a party political basis, so surely balance does not come into the matter. It is a case of either that or merit, not both.
Lord Ennals: I thought that I stressed the quality, skill and experience aspects. If a Secretary of State were to find on analysis that, for example, 85 per cent. of health authority chairmen were Conservatives, he would feel that there was something wrong. I am not saying what he would do; that responsibility does not fall upon me. But I should want to ensure that we had the best possible people. I totally support both the principle and the wording of the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in almost everything that he has said, but not with his amendment. I probably made more appointments of health authority chairmen than any other Secretary of State because it fell to me to appoint the 190 new district health chairmen when the areas were abolished and the districts were to be set up. I entirely endorse the proposition that one should choose people for their quality, abilities and experience and that politics should not enter into the matter at all.
I also agree with the noble Lord that that approach is not always popular with one's supporters. He mentioned John Dunwoody, who was one of my appointees. I appointed him to a district. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about him. Perhaps I may also mention Sir Sidney Hamburger, who was re-appointed regional chairman in the North-West to the total disapproval of every Conservative Member of Parliament in the North-West. I came under enormous pressure not to re-appoint Sir Sidney Hamburger. I reappointed him because he was an extremely good regional chairman. I cannot remember whether I appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. If I did, I am proud of it—but she shakes her head. Perhaps it was someone else who came after me who appointed her.
Perhaps I may mention one or two other appointments that I made including Mr. Eric Moonman, who had been a prominent and able member of the Labour Party. I re-appointed Dr. Ivan Clout to a district health authority in Surrey, again to the total opposition of all the Conservative Members of Parliament for Surrey.
I accept the principle that politics should not enter into the appointment one way or the other.
116
Secretaries of State have increasingly looked for people with business experience as we have moved progressively from health authorities looking rather like local authorities with a large amount of representative membership to their becoming, as the proposals in the White Paper have it, much more like executive boards. There will therefore be a natural tendency to look for people with a strong business background. In those circumstances there may be a tendency for more of those people to have voted Conservative.
In many cases one simply did not ask what a person's politics were. People came with a good record. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has, as so often, put her finger on the point; namely, that one may agree with everything that we have said about the absence of political bias being highly desirable and totally disagree with the amendment because it brings in political bias by requiring a balance or, as the amendment puts it rather negatively, that the Secretary of State should ensure that appointments,
"do not give prominence to one political party or opinion".
If one finds that one is appointing or re-appointing 200 district health authority chairmen—in many cases one does not know their politics—and then discovers that, having appointed the best people, there are 70 per cent. from one party and 30 per cent. from another, must one then change some of those appointments so as to obtain something nearer 50-50? That is what the amendment means.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will endorse the principle that politics should notenter into the matter, but say that the amendment would not be the way to achieve that end. The best way is to ensure that Secretaries of State are prepared to resist the political pressures and appoint the best people.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: As I have been mentioned, perhaps I may be allowed to quote some personal experiences, having been a regional chairman appointed originally by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, at the end of 1973. I should like to pay tribute to his appointments of regional chairmen because, as far as I can see, there was absolutely no political bias in those appointments.
The Committee will probably know that it has been the custom for regional chairmen to meet at regular intervals prior to meeting the Secretary of State. In the early life of the reorganisation of the health service there was certainly never any political feeling among the regional chairmen. It was perhaps because we all felt that the appointments had not been made on a political basis.
In 1974 there was a change of government. It was not the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but probably his predecessor who began what I would call the habit of appointing, when the opportunity occurred, chairmen of area and regional health authorities who had the same political views as those of the government in power. That caused the co-operative feeling among the chairmen to change somewhat. Once or twice it began to give a political bias to the discussions. With the further change of government in 1979 that attitude towards appointing a supporter

117
of the Government in office increased. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, did not have an opportunity to decide whether or not to reappoint me. For personal reasons I had to resign at the end of 1983, as no doubt he remembers. So he did not have to make up his mind as to whether or not a Liberal would be acceptable for a third term.
I am trying to say that the political bias in the appointments changed the relationship between the regional chairmen. I do not think it was a good influence on the way in which they worked together. However, when I unfortunately had to resign, which I very much regretted, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, whether I could make any recommendation for a successor. I put up a name. With all due respect to the noble Lord's remarks about no political bias, the first question that he asked me was, "Do you know what his politics are?" That does not sound as though it were not a slightly politically biased question. I was also asked, "How many MPs in the region does he know?" I could not answer that question either.
My attitude was that I had recommended that person because I felt that from among all the people I knew he was the only one who could do the job. It had never occurred to me to ask him about his politics. I believe that that is the way in which appointments should be considered. I think it is essential to have an amendment of this kind to make certain that we guard against the kind of thing that happened in the past. It happened under a Labour Government and under this Government. I want to see appointed the people who can do the job.
Lord Auckland: I intervene in the debate with some diffidence because I have served only on a House committee and as president of a league of friends. Although I support the principle behind this amendment, I can see enormous difficulties in its implementation. I live in the Mole Valley which is a Conservative area, at the present time anyway. Where the late and lamented gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale who initiated the National Health Service lived, there is a very strong Labour catchment area. In two such areas how is one to obtain suitable political appointments? That is my first point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned Mrs. Julia Cumberlege. In my area of Epsom we are having what one distinguished former Prime Minister described as certain local difficulties in moving certain sections of our local hospital to another hospital. Ironically that move comes from a very distinguished person in the health service who is shortly to become a Member of this Chamber. I mention that because I believe that if this amendment is accepted there will be enormous cross-party differences when not only appointments but transfers of services from one hospital to another are made.
On that basis, although I support the principle of the amendment, I believe that its implementation would raise enormous problems.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the Committee makes a decision on this amendment one should look a little further not just into its purpose but at its likely effect. I think that most of those who have listened to this debate agree with the general philosophy that has been expressed from both sides of the Chamber, to the effect that appointments should be made on merit and irrespective of the political alignment of the people appointed. But the terms of the amendment that the Committee is asked to accept make clear that that will not be possible because it will impose a duty on the Secretary of State, apparently regardless of anything else, to make sure that the appointments do not give prominence to one political party or opinion.
Let us take the possible situation—indeed, the probable situation in many parts of the country—that most of the suitable appointees for posts are members of one party or another. In parts of the South of England there is very little doubt that a fairly high proportion of those suitable for appointment will more or less hold Conservative views. I am certain that in many other parts of the country the overwhelming proportion of those suitable for appointment will be of Labour Party views. It may even be so in the remoter stretches of outer Wales with people who hold various brands of Liberal views. The Committee therefore must look very carefully at this issue.
The amendment lays down that political alignment apparently should be the dominating factor in the decision on appointment. Let us take one of the examples that I gave, of an area in which the suitable people are overwhelmingly of the Labour Party. As I understand the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be able to appoint a good many of them but would find that the dominant consideration which he must apply, regardless of the respective abilities and merits of the people to be appointed, would be to have a political balance on that authority. Nobody wants that. Before the Committee decides upon this amendment, it ought to consider what would be its effect—not the intention nor the excellent motives behind it. That effect seems to me to be perfectly clear and very damaging.
Baroness Phillips: I believe that this amendment is necessary and very timely. As politicians we have all been guilty of allowing politics into almost every walk of life. I have always felt it wrong that one should ask about the politics of a potential magistrate, but that is done.
The Committee has talked about balance—that there must be some of these and some of those. Politics have crept into everything. When I was Lord Lieutenant—and I thought it was a tribute to me that they did not know my politics—I was often asked, "Are you one of us?" I used to reply, "Now which 'us' do you mean? I am a woman—that's obvious. I am a Catholic—that is another group. I am a socialist—yet another group. How many more do you want?
Politics have crept into our public life in a very insidious way. This is one way in which we can—I think for the first time—make it clear that people must be appointed for their abilities and on their

119
merits and not with a view to their age, sex, colour or political views.
4 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may make one point. In my part of the world, there are still Liberals—and it is not the deepest part of Wales. Our local chairman of the area health authority did not know until about seven days before his term of office expired whether or not he would be reappointed. Certainly everyone who served in that authority felt that that was outrageous. I put great pressure on the successor of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to make a decision one way or the other. The chairman was reappointed for two years. Expedition in the making of appointments is an aspect that ought to be discussed during this debate. One knew that a search was being made to appoint someone else who held rather different views. In fact, someone else could not be found, and he was reappointed for two years. After the two years expired, sure enough, he was ditched.
We all know that in recent years far more party politics have come into the appointment of people in public office, whether in the health authority or outside. Patronage has become too widespread and it really must stop.
Baroness Hooper: I was interested to hear the experiences quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and others. I begin by agreeing completely with those who have said that party politics should not be the criterion in these important appointments.
In spite of what has been said by some, I must stress that appointments to health service bodies made by the Secretary of State and regional health authorities have never been made and so far as concerns this Government will not in the future be made on party political grounds. I cannot speak for appointments that have been made to the district health authorities in the past by local authorities. In fact, the changes in health authority membership which we propose in this Bill are a firm move away from any representative type of appointment or political bias.
The problem at present is that many health authority members tend to regard themselves asrepresentatives of the body which nominated them or, in the case of some district health authority members, the local council which appointed them. This has led to fundamental confusion as to whether health authorities are representative or management bodies. We believe that the Government's proposals will remove this confusion by creating smaller authorities of which the actual managers will also be members for the first time. There will be slimmer, more effective management bodies that will provide a single focus for effective decision-making. They will be unhindered therefore by the tendency of members to feel that they need to represent a body or indeed a political viewpoint.
Moreover, I must also point out that we simply do not have that information. Routinely—and I emphasise "routinely"—neither regional health
120
authorities nor Ministers at the centre ask about the political allegiance of candidates for appointment. As I have said, we do not propose to do so in the future.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene. We ought to conduct the debate on a basis of realism. Is the noble Baroness saying that her department is not bombarded with letters from all and sundry, in her case from members of her own party, drawing her attention to the politics of the people whom she is considering? If she is, there has been a miracle in Whitehall since the last time that I was involved.
I am not for a moment impugning her motives. But the suggestion that somehow one is unaware of the politics of people is so preposterous that I cannot believe we can conduct this discussion on that basis.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that the implication of the amendment is that that information should be routinely collected. That is what I am aiming to disprove with my argument. Certainly it is not routinely collected as of now. One cannot of course prevent anybody who so chooses from writing with views on any subject.
I believe—and I agree with those who have already stated so—that the aim is and must be to appoint the best person for the job in each case. People of various party political persuasions—indeed, some of none—have been appointed. That will continue. We do not know the political affiliation, if any, of most appointees. I believe that it would be wrong to try to collect that information, which the amendment implies that we should do. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has very clearly pointed that out.
I believe the Committee would agree that it would be quite improper for me to comment on the appointment of named individuals. I simply reiterate that all appointments are made on the basis of personal qualities and experience of the individual concerned, not for any sexual or political reason. I believe that some of the examples that have been quoted this afternoon bear that out.
I hope therefore that I have said enough to persuade the movers of the amendment that, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has said, the amendment is unnecessary and raises the question of political bias. That is why we cannot accept it.
Lord Ennals: I am very surprised at the reply of the noble Baroness. She seems to think that slimmer and more effective bodies are less likely to have a political chairperson appointed. We shall argue later about how slim or how efficient a body should be. However, I entirely agree with my noble friend's intervention. Any Secretary of State, whatever his political party, must be under great pressure to make appointments or not to make appointments, or to ensure that someone who has held a political point of view is not reappointed. I find it quite staggering for the noble Baroness to say that her department and her Ministers do not know. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would take the same view that I have done. Of course it is known.
This is an absolutely essential amendment. Anyone who has analysed what has happened in

121
recent appointments will see that there has been a very significant swing from one particular party, or no party, to another party.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, surprised me when he suggested that there were certain areas of the Country in which it would not be possible to find someone who had the experience, competence and skill to become chairman either of a regional health authority or of a district health authority except by making a political appointment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord misunderstands me, I am sure unintentionally. I said that there were areas in the country where the great majority of suitable appointees would, because of the general set-up there, be of one party or another and the effect of the amendment that he was supporting would be to prevent some of them being appointed by insisting on, above all, as a priority a political balance.
Lord Ennals: If I misunderstood the noble Lord, I am sorry. However, I do not think the logic of what he has said is conclusive. I believe that appointments should be made on the basis of skill and not on the basis of political commitment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear.
Lord Ennals: That is the purpose behind the amendment. I very strongly hope that it will be passed. We may make some further adjustment at Report stage to ensure that appointments are made on the basis of merit and not political allegiance. That might be a better way of proposing it.
I hope that we shall vote on an amendment that lays down a very important principle at the beginning of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord on having placed it at the beginning. I hope that he will decide to divide the Committee in order that it can express its view.
Lord Winstanley: For once I am not in total disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I accept that the amendment could have been better worded. For any deficiencies that it may have, I apologise. I am responsible.
The intention is precisely that which I announced and which many people have understood. However, I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has stated, that its wording could require the Secretary of State to consider party political affiliation in order to achieve balance, and so on. That was not my intention. It is a very early stage of the Bill. We have later stages. If we carried the amendment and it is defective, it can very easily be altered. I am quite sure that the Government are capable of finding a better form of words.
I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. I was reassured about her opinion; but I already knew it. I am not reassured about what is happening. I accept that much of my recent experience is anecdotal because I am no longer in active medical practice. However, I have received information from sources in various parts of the country which I regard
122
as being reliable. It shows that in recent years there has been a large increase in the number of people removed from appointments for apparently political reasons and in the insertion of other people for reasons which at least appear to be political. That belief may be unfair to the Secretary of State responsible but that is what appears to be happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made an admirable speech which I was delighted to hear. I am sure that he acted in the way he described. He is to be congratulated on appointing Sir Sydney Hamburger as chairman of Manchester Regional Health Authority. Sir Sidney was a splendid chap who the noble Lord said remained in office. However, it is my understanding that he was later removed from office for reasons which were widely believed to be political. That was reported as being so in the local press, although perhaps wrongly.
It is most important that the public should be encouraged to understand that such appointments are not made on a party political basis. At this stage I should like the Committee to enunciate the general principle behind the Bill. If the amendment is badly worded or defective—and possibly it is—it can be altered at a later stage. Members of all parties have decided that they wish to keep party politics out of our debates during this stage and later stages. Therefore, it would be admirable at this first opportunity to take a decision showing that we do not want party politics to play any part in the running of the National Health Service. In those circumstances I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 141.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blease, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hunt, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacques, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jay, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Leatherland, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ennals, L.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkland, V.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McCarthy, L.

Foot, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mais, L.

Galpern, L.

123

Meston, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Rochester, L.

Milverton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Mishcon, L.

Russell, E.

Molloy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Seear, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Serota, B.

Nicol, B.

Stallard, L.

Oram, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Phillips, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Underhill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Hankey, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Havers, L.

Aldington, L.

Hayter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Allerton, L.

Henley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hertford, M.

Annaly, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hirshfield, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Holderness, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blake, L.

Ilchester, E.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boardman, L.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Braye, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Lawrence, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Burton, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Butterfield, L.

Long, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Luke, L.

Caldecote, V.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Margadale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marsh, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Mountevans, L.

Crook, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Dormer, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Effingham, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elibank, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Erne, E.

Porritt, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Flowers, L.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gibson, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Grantchester, L.

Shannon, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Slim, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Smith, L.

Sondes, E.

124

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Torrington, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Tryon, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ullswater, V.

Sudeley, L.

Vinson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Swinton, E.

Wise, L.

Terrington, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, after ("member") insert ("but this shall not prevent their re-appointment under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act")
The noble Lord said: I trust that this amendment will prove non-controversial. The requirement in Clause 1(4) is that any person other than the chairman of a regional or district health authority shall, at the appointed day, cease to be a member of that authority. Of course, the intention is that the members of the authorities appointed from the appointed day shall constitute a new authority.
Throughout this country there is a very considerable reservoir of knowledge, experience, dedication and expertise among those who have served—some for very long periods and others for much shorter periods—as members of regional or district health authorities. I believe that it would be very sad for the National Health Service if those people who have given such sterling service on a voluntary basis for many years were to be totally excluded from membership of the new authorities. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is simply to write into the Bill the fact that such individuals shall not be prevented, even after their membership of existing authorities ceases, from being appointed to the new authorities.
The amendment is not only crucial from the point of view of ensuring continuity; it is important in order that the expertise of those individuals shall not be lost. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I have put my name to the amendment and I support it. We are talking not only about chairmen of regional and district health authorities and family health service authorities in England and Wales. We are also talking about all those who serve as members—thousands of outstanding people up and down the country who serve voluntarily as members of health authorities. Many of those people have made the National Health Service as good as it is and we wish to retain their services.
The Government are proposing that there should be much smaller health authorities comprising five executive or employee members and five non-executive members plus a non-executive chairman. They have said no more than that those members will be chosen on the basis of the skills and experience which they can bring to the authority. However, critics expect and fear that in large part the outsiders will be businessmen. There is nothing

125
wrong with businessmen. There are some businessmen on health authorities at present and we should continue to use their skill and experience on the new authorities.
However, I should like to quote a letter from Mrs. Cumberlege. I have already referred to her but I do so now in her capacity as chairman of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority. My former general practitioner, Dr. Mel Henry, a GP in the area of Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton, serves on that district authority. He wrote to Mrs. Cumberlege to say how much he had valued working on the health authority and that he would be delighted, if given the opportunity, to serve again. I have kept in touch with Dr. Henry; he was an admirable and very able member of the health authority.
He received a letter from Mrs. Cumberlege which said:
"There is just one problem about membership of authorities in the future in that it is intended not to mix up the provider (ie, GP) role with that of the purchaser (ie, DHA) and as a consequence I am afraid I cannot be optimistic about being able to recommend you, or any other practitioner or consultant, for membership. I am sorry to disappoint you but I felt it better to be straight about it now rather than lead you to expect something that I know I shall not be able to deliver".
I do not know how many existing members of health authorities have received similar correspondence from regional or district chairmen. That letter was unfortunate in two respects. It seems to confirm the impression that the Secretary of State is planning a clean sweep to bring in a new type of member with little knowledge of the National Health Service or indeed of the needs of patients and the community.
However, I ask myself: who could have approved such a letter? No chairman of a regional health authority would write a letter like that unless it had been approved in some way by the department. There must have been a steer in relation to the letter. It contains an assumption that the legislation before us is already on the statute book and that principles can be laid down which have not yet been debated in this Chamber. I find that very disturbing.
I do not make a personal criticism of Mrs.Cumberlege. As regards the earlier amendment, I have already said how much I respect her and her abilities. However, I fear that the Secretary of State is giving the impression I have outlined. That is why my noble friend and others have put their names to the amendment. I hope that the Minister will feel bound to accept it.
Baroness Cox: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments but I wish to explain why my name is attached to the amendment. I hope that it provides clarification and that the Minister will be able to accept it. Surely it must be the intention that there should be provision for some continuity of experience and expertise. If that is the case, then the amendment is clearly necessary. It would do a great deal to allay anxieties about the ambiguity of the Bill as it stands. I hope that my noble friend can respond sympathetically to the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether one of its supporters can enlighten the Committee as to the exact intention of the amendment. I see much objection to reappointment of people within their own district. I see no objection to their reappointment in other districts where a potential clash of interest and principles would not arise. Does the noble Lord wish to ensure that a person not reappointed in one area is nonetheless qualified to be appointed to another authority in a different area?
Lord Walton of Detchant: The intention is simply to write into the Bill the necessity of making it open for individuals who may have served on health authorities in the past to be available to be appointed to health authorities in the future. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I understand the concerns expressed by the mover of the amendment. Therefore, I am very pleased to be able to reassure the Committee on the matter with which it is concerned. I believe however that the amendment—and I hope that I shall be able to explain this—is unnecessary.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent current members of health authorities being considered for reappointment as non-executive members of the reconstituted health authorities; indeed, we expect that a number of them will be. That is certainly in the interests of continuity, as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Cox. At the same time, I must emphasise that all the new appointments will be made purely on the basis of the personal contribution and experience which the individuals can bring to the work of a particular authority. I believe we all agree that appointments should be made only on that basis, as was brought out in our previous discussion.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pay tribute to the effective contribution that health authority members have made all over the country to the running of the National Health Service in recent years. With the smaller number of members and the introduction of some fresh blood, it will clearly not be possible for all current members to be appointed to the new style authorities. That will in no way be a personal reflection on their performances. We sincerely hope that many of them will continue to be involved with the health authority and that it will continue to benefit from their experience.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, GPs will only be excluded from membership of district health authorities if they are practice fund holders. There would then be a potential conflict of interest as they would be direct purchasers of services. The appointment of the non-executive members of district health authorities will be a matter for the appropriate regional health authority acting within the terms of the new legislation, which is currently under consideration, but it will also be subject to departmental guidance. All non-executive members will be appointed on the basis of the individual skills and experience which they can bring to the authority.

127
The letter from Mrs. Cumberlege, to which the noble Lord referred, was, I understand, sent without reference to the Department of Health. As I explained, GPs will only be excluded from membership of district health authorities if they are practice fund holders.
Change is always unsettling for people who have been involved with an organisation for some time. Nevertheless, I am sure that it will be agreed that the government reforms, which will create smaller authorities and bring together executive and non-executive members to provide a single focus for decision-making, will increase the efficiency of health authorities and bring about the end for which we all earnestly hope—the maximum benefit to the patient. I therefore trust that the noble Lord who moved the amendment will feel able to withdraw it in the light of my reassurance that it is unnecessary and that there will be nothing to prevent current health authority members being considered for reappointment as non-executive members of the reconstituted authorities.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I could ask who the executive members will be and what sort of officers the authorities will have. I serve on a regional health authority and we have a very good mix. We have men and women. However, almost all the senior officers of the authority who are the present advisers are men. Will it be of benefit to patients if there is an imbalance of more men than women, as I think will happen?
I should also like to say that the businessmen who come on to the authority are the ones who understand the National Health Service least of all. They have hardly used the health service; they are generally healthy men who take quite a long time to understand how the authority runs. There is fear that fewer women will be serving in the health service in the future.
Baroness Hooper: I shall do my best to reassure the noble Baroness. In the department, when we are looking at names and nominations, we are always anxious to ensure that there is a very good mix in every sense of the word. I certainly anticipate that in making appointments to the new bodies, those who are making the appointments, whether from the centre or at regional health authority level, will be guided by the principle that they shall have the best possible mix of background and experience. And that includes a fair representation of women.
Baroness Phillips: It is perhaps a little unfortunate that the noble Baroness used the words "new blood". This is one of the "in" things, it is not? There are three magic words in our society; new, young and free. It does not necessarily follow that the new blood will be any better than the old blood that has gone before. Change is not always for the best. We live in a very changed society and I should certainly not say that many of the changes that we are seeing are for the best. To start with, this particular Bill will change things, but not for the better.
128
The suggestion was a little unfortunate: we all know the devastating feeling one has when one is pushed off a committee. Those are the only words one can use. It is not the same as being told by an employer that one is to lose one's job; in that case a reason has to be given. I recall being on the Consumer Council and as soon as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, as she now is, came in, four of us were pushed off What had we in common? Not our lack of experience with consumer affairs. We all happen to be socialists—a pure coincidence, I am sure.
The words should be written into the Bill. It is all very well for the Minister to say that it will not happen. An advertisement will say that those who applied before may re-apply; otherwise, people tend to think that they have tried once, did not receive a reply and therefore will not try again. This is exactly the same situation. People who come off the authority will not expect to be reappointed; yet they are probably extremely valuable people. We want people of quality and dedication. We have had them in the past. The Government should think very carefully before becoming too hooked up on this "new blood" idea, particularly if it is to be all male.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Baroness voiced a very sound conservative principle when she declared that not all change is for the best. As we might perhaps put it on this side of the Chamber, the burden of proof rests on those who advocate change. We might invite the noble Baroness to cross the Floor at some time; she will find herself among friends.
When I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I looked again at the Bill, because it did not seem to me that it contained anything to stop the reappointment of competent people who were eligible for reappointment. My noble friend on the Front Bench has entirely reassured me on that point. I certainly support the idea of smaller authorities and the proposition that within any particular district it would not be right to have providers and authorities sitting together; they will be faced with impossible conflicts of interest.
Subject to that, I hope that those with experience and who remain eligible will be fully eligible for reappointment. My noble friend has given the reassurance that we seek on that point. In those circumstances there is really no need to press the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I wonder whether I may raise a point which the Minister mentioned regarding the possibility of GPs being on the health authorities. Part of the argument is that those who are budget holders should not be on the authority because effectively they will be employing themselves in some respects. However, we are in a situation where there are no budget holders and there will not be any budget holders until after the introduction of the new authorities. We are thus in a position of being asked by the Government to say that we will only pick health authority members who are not going to be budget holders. We do not know who they will be and therefore almost by definition the

129
Government will exclude all GPs because they might become budget holders. There is concern about that philosophy and attitude of mind. In effect we shall see the total exclusion of GPs from health authorities.
We all recognise that GPs have made a significant contribution as members of health authorities. Perhaps I may expand a little on that point. We do not argue about GPs being members of family practitioner committees, where in effect they are employing themselves. Therefore the argument that as budget holders they should not be members of a district health authority does not hold water. The providers of the service have always been involved in running the service. One should not discriminate against some providers by saying that they should not be involved in overseeing the service. That is a new idea from the Government. It is almost a new principle, and it is being introduced without the sanction of Parliament and without any real consideration by Parliament. This is not the way to seek change, especially in such a significant institution in our British way of life as the National Health Service.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord for emphasising this point because it is important to reassure people and to allay any anxieties which may have arisen as a result of the introduction of these proposals. I should like to reaffirm that it is not intended that GPs as a group should be excluded from regional health authorities or district health authorities. We shall bear that very much in mind when issuing guidance. I should also point out that no appointments will be made in this respect until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin to some extent replied, it is in the nature of things that fresh blood must be introduced from time to time. That is recognised even in your Lordships' House.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there is nothing in the Bill to preclude the appointment to health authorities of those who have served on such authorities in the past. The purpose of the amendment was to fulfil a probing function. In the light of the clear and unequivocal assurances that we have received from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peston: I put down my name to oppose the Question as a means of probing an aspect of the Bill which I find somewhat arcane. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill there is a straightforward sentence which I can understand. It states that Clause 1,
"streamlines the procedures for altering the boundaries of regions and districts".
130
I assume that Clause 1(3) deals with streamlining. It refers us to the schedule. I confess that I cannot make head or tail of any of the wording of the schedule, but that is the only part of the Bill that could remotely refer to streamlining. I hope that I am talking about the right part. I want to ask about the streamlining procedures. I am probing at this stage rather than tabling an amendment in the hope that I can have some explanation of what the Government have in mind.
The boundaries of regions and districts are extremely important. Indeed the way the Government's proposals work in practice will certainly depend on the boundaries of the regions, the districts and the FHSAs. Nothing makes this point more clearly than a consideration of the way fund-holding practices will work. What a fund-holding general practitioner can do, and for that matter what someone who is not a fund holder can do, will depend on definitions of boundaries. In other words, it will depend on which region or district he is in. This point also applies to self-regulating trusts. We cannot regard the question of boundaries as a trivial matter.
This leads me to the actual questions that I wish to raise under this heading. First, can the noble Baroness say what "streamlining" means? What do the Government have in mind? Can she say in particular what problems with the present National Health Service Act have led to the requirement for streamlining? Secondly, how will the new method of streamlining work in practice? What will happen? Thirdly, have the Government any proposals for streamlining particular medical practices and hospitals?
I have taken this opportunity to raise the issue of streamlining. As I have found it rather esoteric, it may well be that the noble Baroness will also find it rather esoteric. She may feel that she does not want to plunge into giving me a definitive answer at this moment. But it would be helpful to me if she could give a definitive answer at some time before Report stage. Purely theoretically, it seems that the kind of worries I have had about the ordinary NHS side of the boundary question and streamlining will also apply, perhaps even a fortiori, to the community care side, where again the region, the district and the FHSA that one happens to be in seems to be the relevant matter. I raise these points as this stage solely for information and enlightenment but with a view in due course if I do learn enough about the subject to table amendments.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the investigatory nature of his intervention. I shall do my best to give him an adequate answer. If it is not adequate I shall be happy to supplement it further at later stages.
The intention behind making new arrangements for boundary changes in Clause 1 is to remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on an order varying the boundary of the health authority, including an order establishing a new one or abolishing or merging an existing one. At present a somewhat wasteful duplication of consultation is involved in the process. This is where the

131
streamlining comes in. The regional health authority consults widely on the principle of boundary change or merger but the Secretary of State is then required to repeat this consultation, concentrating on the content of the order, not the principle. There will continue to be thorough consultation but there will also be a removal of the possibility of duplication.
The clause simply aims to make the process quicker and more comprehensible to those consulted and, it is to be hoped, to all of us. A single consultation exercise will be undertaken by the regional health authority. The wasteful and confusing duplication of consultation exercises will therefore end. It should not be seen as a green light for widescale district health authority mergers. The reforms of health authority membership are not about wholesale restructuring but are designed to concentrate management attention where it matters. The regional health authority will be expected to consult widely at local level before putting proposals to the Secretary of State. He will consider them only where there is a compelling case for a change. I hope that my explanation is helpful to the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Family Health Services Authorities]:
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert ("but appointments to the Family Health Services Authorities shall reflect the importance of continuity of service").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not dissimilar to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in relation to Clause 1. Clause 2 deals with the new family health services authorities which were the family practitioner committees. In turn they were the executive councils and local committees. I speak as one who served as a member of the Lancashire Executive Council and the Lancashire Local Medical Committee before both of those organisations were reorganised and subsumed under the new title of family practitioner committees. Therefore, I know a little about the running of these bodies. I worked very closely with a family practitioner committee with which I was under contract in general practice.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was to ensure that there was nothing to debar the reappointment of people to health authorities. I do not ask for that because my amendment merely requires that,
"appointments to the Family Health Services Authorities shall reflect the importance of continuity of service".
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in the course of an earlier intervention said that those who propose change have a duty to demonstrate the advisability of the change. I say to him that I am not opposed to change but I have some belief in the principle of the inevitability of gradualness. Therefore, I prefer changes not to be too dramatic. I should not like to see suddenly wiped out a family practitioner committee containing some very valuable members with great experience and its replacement by people with no experience of running a family practitioner committee or what is now to be called a family health service authority.
Continuity of service is very important. If the experienced people who have served for some years are suddenly removed and replaced by people with very little experience, the likelihood is that the new people will tend to do exactly what the chief officer tells them to do. To my mind that is not an ideal family health service authority. I believe that continuity is important. In making these appointments I hope that proper consideration will be given to this matter. We have a new system with all kinds of new procedures taking place as regards the general practitioner services, quite apart from the new contact. If we suddenly have totally new committees administering these bodies without any continuity, the departure of experienced people who have served on those committees would be a bad development.
I hope that I shall receive some reassuring words from the noble Baroness when she comes to reply. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I am currently a member of the Manchester Family Practitioner Committee. I have to tell the Committee that over the past six months or so there has been the introduction of general managers to family practitioner committees as opposed to administrators. In some cases the original administrators have become the new general managers, so there is continuity of service in that respect. However, on a quite significant number of occasions there has been the replacement of the original administrator by a new person as general manager.
In my experience that has led not to difficulties, because that would be too strong a word, but to a need for education of the new general managers, which is necessary in the sense that the new general managers have come from outside the health service. They have not been aware of the traditions and the ways in which the National Health Service has worked, besides the particular emphasis and importance of aspects of service in the family practitioner committee arena.
It has been vitally important for the established members and chairpersons of the committees to be available to give advice and guidance to the new general managers of the family practitioner service. Given that context, the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has moved is doubly important. Not only do we need a general sense of continuity in the National Health Service but also in the very specific context of the family practitioner service and what is to be called the family health service authority. We have very special circumstances. The introduction of the new general managers reinforces the need for continuity among the membership of these new advisers. I support the noble Lord in his amendment. I hope that we can get some understanding from the Government of the need for this continuity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Monkswell, that we shall not be throwing away the valuable experience of existing members of family

133
health service authorities, as my noble friend has already said as regards both regional and district health authorities. I am sure that many lay members will be reappointed and others will be well placed to contribute to the work of the authority in other ways; for example, by serving on sub-committees. We share the concern of both noble Lords as regards continuity. If they look at Working for Patients, paragraph 7.24 they will note that it is stated that:
"The Government will ensure that the new lay membership will preserve a measure of continuity with FPCs as currently constituted".
Nothing in the Bill jeopardises that.
I emphasise that the main objective in selecting members for the new authorities will be to enable the best people to be appointed for the job. Where the appointing authorities can achieve this and maintain continuity they will obviously wish to do so. However, there is no need for this to be a legislative requirement. Indeed, if we were to state it in legislation here we could inadvertently cast doubt on our ability to maintain continuity elsewhere. I hope with that in mind and in the light of those assurances that the noble Lord will not press this amendment to a Division.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his observations and reassuring remarks. I accept what he has said as being his intentions and no doubt those of his department. I hope that time will no: show that my confidence has been misplaced. It will be disastrous if we later find that the family health services in a certain area are being run by a committee comprised of members who have had no experience of running them and with a general manager who comes from outside and is also without experience. That would mean that the family practitioner services were being run by the Secretary of State or by his minions in the department. That is something which has to be avoided because it is certainly not the right way to run family health services.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reassurances. I shall await with interest reassurance from what actually happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 to 9.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 37B, 37C, 95, 102, 103ZA and 105. I believe that in doing so it will be for the convenience of the Committee. This series of amendments derives from remarks that I made at Second Reading in which I criticised the Bill for perpetuating and reinforcing the demarcations between the district health authority and the family practitioner committee—now to be called the family health service authority—made directly responsible to the regional health authority.
I suggested that it would make better sense to amalgamate the family health service authority with the relevant district or districts, thus breaking down the artificial division between the family
134
practitioners, the hospitals and the community health service. This is not only SDP policy. In their eighth report the House of Commons Social Services Select Committee reaffirmed their recommendation, contained both in their first report of 1986-87 and in their fifth report of 1987-88, that the functions of DHAs and FPCs should be merged.
The case for the merging of their respective functions is strong as both bodies have an important public health role and the FPCs are currently subject to annual and full four-yearly performance reviews, and the health authorities are also required to produce an annual report, which could lead to unnecessary duplication. There are many population based services such as child health surveillance, immunisation and vaccination which are currently provided both by GPs and DHAs, and so amalgamation of services should provide useful rationalisation.
The Government's response has been rather ambiguous. Responding to the Social Services Commitee's eighth report they stated that in their view the amalgamation of FPCs and DHAs would not be in the interests of the health service. However, the White Paper Working for Patients states in paragraph 3.20 that as more and more hospitals opt to become self-governing some DHAs will cease to be viable and will need to consider
"the possibility of sensible mergers with neighbouring Districts. Larger Districts might eventually become candidates for mergers with Family Practitioner Committees".
These amendments would facilitate that development.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. Amendment No. 3 would leave out Clause 2(6), which as at present written precludes the possible amalgamation of DHAs and FHSAs by preventing the inclusion of a family health services authority in the expression "health authority", as defined in the principal Act, which restricts that definition to regional and district health authorities; so it would be necessary to remove that to pave the way for possible amalgamations.
Amendments Nos. 37B and 37C to Schedule 1 would make DHAs responsible for appointments to FHSAs rather than the regional health authorities, thus making for a better co-ordination between the two main providing arms of the service.
Amendments Nos. 102, 103ZA and 105 taken together have the effect of shifting the direct responsibility for the functioning and financing of the family health services authorities from the regional health authority to the district health authority, with the object of achieving better co-ordination, as I have already explained. It would be in everybody's interests—consultants, GPs, nurses and community health workers—to ensure that patients receive the most appropriate care, not necessarily in hospital. It would also provide an incentive to health authorities as a whole to invest in health promotion and stimulate a wider range of GP services, which might include the rehabilitation of GP or community hospitals to reduce expensive and unnecessary stays in acute hospitals.
I have deliberately jumped over Amendment No. 95, which is also grouped with this series, to which

135
I now revert. This is intended to open up the possibility of an entire district health authority becoming a self-governing NHS trust, as referred to in Amendments Nos. 102 and 103ZA. This ties in with our desire to amalgamate family health services with district health authorities because as a result of this amendment family health services authorities could merge either with an existing DHA or with those that had taken the decision to become self-governing.
Amendment No. 95 is a probing amendment, as are all the others, because it is very important to establish at an early stage in the discussion of the Bill what attitude the Government propose to take to the applications they have received from NHS bodies and units other than from single hospitals to become self-governing NHS trusts.
I have here a list, which I believe to be fairly up-to-date, of units which have applied for NHS trust status. It is quite a long one so I certainly will not go through it all, but it includes not only free-standing hospitals but also such units as Cornwall primary care services, Great Yarmouth and Waverley priority services; a number of units concerned with mental health, for example, the Newcastle mental health unit, Cornwall mental handicap services, South Lincolnshire mental handicap services; as well as a number of community services units such as North-West Herts, community services unit. Last but not least, there are about a dozen district health authorities which I understand have made an application for National Health Service trust status in their entirety. Amongst those are Central Manchester Health Authority, Brighton Health Authority, Bristol and Western Health Authority, Bassetlaw Health Authority and Rugby Health Authority.
I am trying to establish through this amendment in particular what the Government's attitude is likely to be towards the various applications. As I have already said, it is of great importance for the Government to tell us today how they view these applications and those of other smaller units. I suggest that the statement that they will be considered on their merits is not good enough. I think we have a right to know the Government's general policy in this area, because a trust could be of especial value to rural districts such as those of North Devon and Bassetlaw which perhaps have only one acute hospital and which are particularly anxious to keep their hospital and their community health services together. We wish to know the Government's general policy in this area because it will have a considerable effect on our view of later stages of the Bill.
As currently drafted, the Bill may well allow DHAs to become self-governing. Clause 5 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order establish bodies … to assume responsibility … for the ownership and management of hospitals or other establishments or facilities which were previously managed or provided by Regional, District or Special Health Authorities".
This could well mean that all the services currently provided by DHAs would be covered, but it is not entirely clear and I submit that it must be clarified.
There are two questions: whether the Bill allows scope for the applications of the type that I have listed and, if so, what the Government's attitude is towards them.
I apologise for having taken up some of the time of the Committee. I hope I have explained the intended effect of the amendments and the thinking behind them, but before I sit down perhaps I should also admit that the drafting may be too prescriptive. In particular, I should like to make it clear that it is not my intention that the structures that I propose should be mandatory over the whole service but rather that they should be opened up as possibilities within the experimental framework which I believe many of your Lordships support. Therefore, if these amendments find favour in principle the drafting defects can be remedied before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: I too await with interest the reply of the noble Baroness to the group of amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I think it is only fair to the noble Lord to say to him that there was a time when I very much agreed with the ideas which he has put forward. He will remember that some of them hark back to the days when Dr. David Owen was Minister of Health. At that time he was much concerned, as were many of us, about the so-called tripartite structure of the National Health Service. In those days it was divided into three parts, like old Gaul: the preventive services, the hospital services and the domiciliary services. The idea at the time was that the three never should meet, and they never seemed to do so. I felt that that was illogical, and I had to do away with it. Therefore, I agreed with some of the ideas which have led to this group of amendments.
However, experience has taught me that there are certain dangers in fusing family health services with the hospital services because very often their interests are in part in conflict. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will recollect this fact. Whenever the hospitals in a certain area suffer what they believe to be cuts—and let us not argue as to whether they were cuts—or whenever they are short of funds and unable to discharge their duties fully, a much heavier burden immediately falls upon the family practitioner services. That happens automatically because hospitals discharge people sooner, or they cannot admit them, and more and more work is left to the family health services.
In many ways at present our family health services are under threat. They are a unique type of mechanism, and I hope that they can be protected. They will be better able to protect themselves in a rapidly changing world if they are left under a separate administrative structure. Therefore, I make clear the fact that while some of these ideas appealed to me at one time, I am now opposed to the amalgamation of the family health service authority. Whatever such an amalgamation would mean for hospitals, it would certainly be to the detriment of the domiciliary services.
Lord Henley: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, appreciates some of the aims behind

137
our reforms. However, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was able to follow his arguments. I was particularly pleased to notice his support for the concept of self-government. For too long the NHS has laboured under a very centralised direction. The move to self-government will free the initiative of all concerned with patient care—namely, doctors, nurses, managers and members—to find local solutions to local problems and to offer the best service within the ever-growing resources available. The amendments recognise the importance of that fact.
However, there is a major difficulty. Unlike our proposals, the amendments do not recognise the important role of the district health authority. Indeed, they do away with it altogether. That is a move which is misguided. Under our proposals, the role of the district health authority will be enhanced rather than diminished. It will no longer be constrained by its operational responsibilities. Instead, it will be free to assess the needs of its resident population and plan to meet them in the most effective way. That will involve intensive work in the planning and community medicine disciplines, both of which have already been strengthened under this Government.
Distri;ts will need to survey all the providers of services within their area in order to ensure that they achieve the best deal for their patients. They will be in an excellent position to influence all providers as they will be able to back their decisions with resources for the first time. The amendments fail to recognise that central role; instead, the new district health trusts combine within themselves the two distinct roles of purchaser and provider of services. That will not lead to clarity. I fear that such organisations would find their plans and aspirations increasingly driven by what services were available, instead of using their purchasing policy to influence providers into meeting precise local needs. In short, many of the benefits which their devolved management would give them would be lost by this fundamental confusion in role.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the DHA and FHSA merger. The White Paper made it clear that the merger of these bodies was possible but only in the longer term. We feel that it would be too destructive in the short term and that it would distract both the district health authorities and the FHSAs from carrying out more important tasks.
While speaking to Amendment No. 95, the noble Lord raised the question of district health authorities becoming NHS trusts. As I said on Second Reading, we are prepared to recognise that it may make sense for the full range of services in a district to become self-governing. We do not wish to prescribe that, nor do we wish to rule it out. The Government will certainly consider applications from whole districts, using benefit to patients as the key criterion. However, as I indicated, we shall ensure that the planning and purchasing functions remain distinct within the district health authority. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that our approach meets his objectives and that he will not press his amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am fairly grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I should stress that I do not intend to press the amendments. However, I should like to clear up one confusion which has arisen. He seemed to suggest that in these amendments we were detracting in some way from the role of the DHA. That was not the intention. Concerning the purchaser and provider, under the proposed structure we would maintain the internal market because one district would be free to trade with another. Therefore there would be some operation of the internal market in some inter-district trading.
The noble Lord is correct to say that we support to a considerable extent the trust concept as it gives greater flexibility over the terms and conditions of employing staff, the freedom to borrow either from the Government or from the private sector, subject to an overall financing limit, and also a freedom to retain notional services and to build up reserves. We agree that those facilities ought to be available to a National Health Service trust and to a district health authority (which became a National Health Service trust) if we see any of these coming into being.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord acknowledge the possibility of a merger in the longer term. It was foreshadowed by the White Paper. I noted that remark with some considerable interest. However, as we are in Committee I should like to probe a little further on one aspect of the matter. The noble Lord went some way to saying that it may make sense for a full range of services embodied in a district to acquire trust status. However, he did not give any idea of the criteria upon which that would be decided. For example, would it be because it made more sense in a rural area that it did in an urban area? That is certainly the view that is held in some of the smaller rural districts which cover the larger areas geographically. They feel that it would be helpful to them to be able to maintain their services together.
As I understand it, a number of other units have applied for trust statues, but they do not extend to the full extent of the district services. In other words, they are community units, mental health units or ambulance units and so on. Before I withdraw the amendments, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help us a little further on how the Government will look at those applications. However, I was not displeased with the latter part of his response.
Lord Henley: I shall respond briefly to the noble Lord's remarks. As he said, any unit of whatever kind can apply. Its eligibility for National Health Service trust status will be considered on its merits. To make the position quite clear perhaps I may return to the question of whole districts. As I said, it might make sense for the full range of services in a district to become NHS trusts. However, that will only relate to the services in the district. The DHA's other roles—that is, planning, purchasing and public health—must be kept separate.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I shall study his reply with great care when it is printed in the Official Report.

139
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Health Authorities and Family Health Services Authorities]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 63, line 7, after ("(1)") insert; ("Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move this amendment and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 23 and 31. I regard these as an important series of amendments. They concern the position of universities and in particular the relationship of universities to the National Health Service.
I raised this point shortly before Christmas in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. I expressed what I regard as the importance of getting the relationship right. The matter was raised by a great many noble Lords during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I shall leave it to other noble Lords who have attached their names to the amendment to set out in some detail the importance of universities in the health service. I make only three short points.
First, universities provide all the undergraduate education and training of all the nation's doctors and dentists. Secondly, they make a significant contribution to post-graduate medical education and continuing medical education. Thirdly, they provide most of the clinical research upon which the future of the National Health Service rests.
The purpose of these four amendments—I have others down later on the Marshalled List which apply the same principle to Scotland—is to ensure that universities share the decision-making process with health authorities at the highest level. Amendment No. 16 refers to the regional health authority, Amendment No. 23 to the district health authority and Amendment No. 31 to Wales.
I said at the beginning that I regarded this as an important series of amendments. The whole organisation and structure of funding, both of the universities and of the health service which are interlocked, are a complicated matter. The committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, reported on the UGC. At one point it criticised the lack of consultation between the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science on the subject of medical education. As a result, the steering group on undergraduate medical education was set up. It was greatly welcomed by the universities as an improved way forward but it does not replace the need for universities to be a part of the decision-making process, both at regional and at district level.
I believe that great harm can be done not only to teaching and research but also to the service and to
140
patient care—which at the end of the day is what the entire debate is about and which universities provide—if unilateral decisions were to be taken by some authorities without taking account of the views and position of universities. There are examples of that on which I have no doubt others will speak from their personal experience.
However, there is one particular aspect of the whole concern which separates this series of amendments from the many others on the Marshalled List concerning representations of one kind or another. I am referring to the straightforward and easily understood fact that universities bring money to the table. They bring some £240 million via the Department of Education and Science. I fully appreciate that in the context of the entire expenditure of the National Health Service this is a small amount. However, it is an important amount. I was about to say that universities are at the cutting edge but that might be regarded as a macabre pun on medical education. Nevertheless, that is exactly where they fall in training, education and research.
Perhaps I may add a personal anecdote to illustrate my interest in the matter. One of the jobs that I have taken on over the past two years is the chairmanship of a large medical appeal for the Oxford hospitals. That has not only brought me into contact with medical research but it has shown me the close inter-working between the university department of clinical medicine, the National Health Service and private money. Each is dependent on the others. It is very much a joint project and one that is worthwhile. However, it clearly depends on the close relationship between the universities and both the regions and the districts or the new regions and the new districts when they are set up.
I said in my opening remarks that the matter had been raised by a great many noble Lords in the course of Second Reading speeches. Not only was it raised by a number of noble Lords but I have every reason to believe that the Government recognised the point. I very much hope that my noble friend Lady Hooper will be able to say something positive about this. The Government recognised it when the Bill was going through another place. Perhaps I may quote from the correspondence between the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health, Sir Christopher France and Sir Edward Parkes, Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Sir Christopher writes in his letter dated 25th January 1990:
"For the future, the White Paper"—
that is to say, the forerunner of the Bill—
"recognised the case for University membership of both relevant Health Authorities and NHS Trusts and there are proposals accordingly in the NHS and Community Care Bill.
"On NHS Trusts, paragraph 3(1)(d) of Schedule 2 provides that, where a Trust has a significant teaching commitment, someone drawn from the University or Medical School is to be included among the non-executive directors."
That is now on the face of the Bill:
"On DHA membership, there will be provision in regulations for teaching District Authorities to continue as now to include a member drawn from the relevant University. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 of the Bill allows for the relevant regulations to be made and these will specify that one of the non-executive members of the teaching district is to be drawn from the

141
appropriate University or Medical School. The fact that this is how the power is to be used has been made clear to the members of the S:anding Committee in the 'Notes on Clauses' "
That is a reference to the Standing Committee in another place. My noble friend Lady Hooper said on Second Reading regarding these matters at col. 1258 of Hansard of 3rd April 1990:
"In the case of districts with significant teaching responsibilities, the membership will also include representation from the relevant university or medical school".
I believe that my noble friend has understood the importance of the point. I hope therefore that she will be able to tell the Committee this afternoon that the Government accept the principle behind these amendments. As always on these occasions I shall quite understand if she feels that the amendments are not correctly drafted or if she would like to come back at a later stage with a redraft.
I hope that my noble friend will understand the impor:ance of this series of amendments which has been recognised in all parts of your Lordships' House. It is not simply of importance to the universities although that in itself is important; it is very important for the National Health Service itself. It is self-evidently true that without good medical education there will be no future National Health Service. It is also self-evidently true that without clinical research we shall not make the advances on the frontiers of medicine which are so important for the health of everybody in the country.
These amendments seek to make the Bill work better and to make the National Health Service work better as regards both the points I have mentioned. For the reasons that I have given I believe that the case of the universities is quite separate and distinct from that of other organisations. I hope therefore that these amendments will be considered in that light. I regard that as an important matter. With those remarks I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept these amendments. As I said earlier, I am sure that they are in the best interests of the National Health Service. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I can be a little more explicit on the effects of these amendments by reference to my own experience. If this group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 5, 16, 23 and 31—is accepted, it would remove the anomaly to which I drew the attention of the Chamber on Second Reading; namely, that as the Bill is now drafted, a NHS trust which is responsible for a teaching hospital would be compelled to have one of its non-executive directors appointed from the university whose students were taught in that hospital. Health authorities, on the other hand, would not be compelled to have a member from the university. I am sure, as I said on Second Reading, the Committee will agree that that is illogical. I ventured to think that it must be an oversight.
If the Bill is amended in the manner which has been suggested, both health authorities and trusts will gain the benefit of the university experience in their policy making, especially in relation to teaching and research in clinical medicine and dentistry. The argument for extending university membership to the health authorities rests on the fact that, as in
142
the past, they will be the fora in which priorities concerning hospitals are argued and where important decisions are made which will be reflected ultimately in their budgets. By illustration, I hope I may remind the Committee that when a health authority has responsibility for teaching hospitals its planning must take into account a range of facts, of which I shall just choose six important ones.
First, as the noble Baroness has already mentioned, full-time academic staff who are paid by the university will each be responsible for some of the patient care. In some university hospitals that contribution is substantial. In one university hospital that I know all the chiefs of service are full-time academic staff.
Secondly such hospitals will contain so-called "embedded accommodation" which has been provided and is still maintained at the expense of the university. That money is in addition to the some £260 million of which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has spoken. Thirdly, the teaching and research conducted by those academic staff add to the average patient cost, I made that point on Second Reading. That fact is recognised by an increment of income provided by the Department of Health to health authorities in respect of each student enrolled. That is known as SIFT or a special increment for teaching. In practice that sum is also meant to provide a contribution towards additional research costs and may therefore be better termed as SIFT and R. An important feature of that sum is that it should be agreed precisely in amount and destination between the university and the regional health authority. If there is no such agreement I am afraid that chaos will ensue.
Fourthly, many of the resources of equipment, premises, libraries and other things which are provided by the university are almost always used by the staff of the health service and vice versa. The maintenance of this close and symbiotic relationship is of the highest importance in achieving a high standard of patient care, no less than in maintaining standards of teaching and research.
Fifthly, it is extremely important to maintain that distribution of patients with particular illnesses which is appropriate for the teaching and research that is carried out in a particular university hospital. That is clearly a matter of great importance when authorities are considering bed allocations, tertiary referral policy and other matters.
Finally, it is vitally necessary to maintain a standard of medical care and facilities which demonstrates to clinical students the standards which they should maintain throughout their working lives; in other words it has to be of exemplary quality. If this is done imperfectly, the performance of those students when they become doctors with clinical responsibility will be less than it should be. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that that would have deleterious knock-on effects which would affect many more patients in the subsequent 30 or 40 years during which such students will practise as doctors.
As a consequence of that and many other arguments which I could adduce, if health authorities are to discharge satisfactorily their duties of teaching

143
and research, it is essential for them to contain members who take a full part in the decision-making process, and who are fully cognisant of the issues I have mentioned and others like them and how those issues can be resolved. Indeed I would go further and say that unless the universities have a voice on the health authorities it will be difficult for them—the universities—to discharge their responsibilities as regards being accountable for the public money which they have received to provide an education for future doctors and dentists and also to carry out research in clinical medicine and dentistry. In all those circumstances it seems to me quite essential that membership of the health authorities by persons nominated by the universities should be enshrined in the Bill.
In that context I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that on a previous occasion reference was made to the requirement on universities and health authorities to have liaison committees. However, unfortunately, those liaison committees were not required to report to the health authority on the one hand and the university on the other. Therefore, the work of many of those liaison committees was in a considerable measure disregarded by both health authorities and universities. I believe that that is a compelling argument for ensuring that we put into the Bill a provision regarding the membership of health authorities to ensure that they incorporate a university element. In that context I should add that I have always regarded the arguments I have deployed as having considerable reciprocal force. By that I mean that there is also a strong case for a university council to have a member, preferably its chairman, drawn from the district health authority or the regional health authority. However, university government is not the subject of the Bill that we have before us. I refer to that point only to establish my own lack of bias.
Having given that background, I do not believe it is necessary for me to rehearse the details of these four amendments other than to emphasise that they provide for an unspecified number of such university people to be on regional health authorities, but for only two to be on a district health authority. The difference is to allow for the fact that there is no district health authority of which I am aware that has more than one university medical or dental school within its district, whereas I can think of some regional health authorities, notably in London and the Trent region which embraces Sheffield, Leicester and Nottingham, which have several medical schools.
I hope that I have put arguments which will enable the Government to recognise the validity of the case and in due course to modify the Bill accordingly. It would be a very great pity if the good relationships between the universities and the health service which are so necessary to the welfare of both, and the great tasks of slightly different kinds which lie ahead for each of them, should not be the best that can be achieved. The amendment will help that progress forward.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should also like to lend my support to the amendments. My mind goes back to the time—which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, will remember well—when we had to decide how we were to allocate the London teaching hospitals to the new district health authorities in London. It was only in London that the problem arose. Of all the administrative consequences of the creation of the new district health authorities which I had to deal with, that proved not only the most difficult but intellectually the most stimulating. That was partly because of the quality of the people with whom I was able to consult. I consulted very widely indeed. It was a considerable challenge and I believe that the solutions found at that time have mostly stood the test of time. That example demonstrates exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said about the way in which the universities and health authorities established extremely close and satisfactory relationships.
I support the amendment. I shall oppose—not necessarily with my voice on every occasion but certainly with my vote—all the subsequent amendments put down to the Bill which are intended to establish representative members. Without wishing to anticipate those debates, it seems to me that the Government's proposals for dividing purchasers and providers depends crucially upon there not being a conflict of interest on the health authorities through having providers on the boards of the purchasers. Those amendments suffer throughout from that defect. Amendment No. 5 does not.
It is not necessarily a question of merging purchasers and providers but one of recognising the function of a district or regional health authority in administering the teaching and research activities of the hospitals which are part of the universities. I do not see how that could be done satisfactorily without the membership suggested in the amendments. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, had to say about the other side of the matter. How many health authority chairmen have the time to devote to the time-consuming business to university administration is another question and not one which is before us. However, there needs to be very close co-ordination and understanding, and wherever possible there should be complete unanimity of view. That is enormously important.
Perhaps I may end by quoting an example of the problems that can arise. The Committee will remember the position that affected the Hammersmith Hospital. It was an ordinary district general hospital in an ordinary area health authority. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, must have been involved in the discussions just as I was. The Hammersmith Hospital was technically not a teaching hospital, although a postgraduate hospital, and not one of the 12 special health authorities. It created an extremely difficult relationship in what was then the Hammersmith and Fulham Area Health Authority.
In those circumstances the only solution was to take the hospital out of the area health authority and create a new special health authority. That is a solution which, as I told the other place, came to me

145
in my bath as I was pondering the problem. I went into the department the next morning and said that I thought that I had found a solution. My permanent secretary said, "I have been thinking, too. What is your solution?" I said that mine was a special health authority for Hammersmith and he said that, interestingly, he had come to the same conclusion. In his case I do not think that he had done so in his bath.
The point that I am making is that where there is a mixture of general health service and, as in that case, very special teaching functions, something more is required. It should not be regarded merely as an ordinary district hospital. The solution adopted by the amendments at least goes a long way towards perpetuating what has been on the whole a successful relationship in circumstances in which there could otherwise be considerable tension, acrimony and disagreement over policy. I hope that my noble friend will be able to make sympathetic noises regarding the amendments.
I repeat that I do not believe that the amendments propose representative membership in the way that all the subsequent amendments which will be moved seek 1o perpetuate what I believe has not been a satisfactory feature of the health service. I hope that my noble friend may be able to offer us some comfort.
Lord Dainton: As the President of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, perhaps I may offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on taking a bath on that particular evening.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I very much support and welcome the amendments. I agree very much with the comments that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. As they have said, the universities have a vital and unique role in relation to the health of this nation. Not only do they train all of the doctors and dentists who serve in our National Health Service, but they and their associated hospitals play a crucial role in the research which leads to advances in medical treatment and improvements in the quality of care which patients receive.
As has been said, the working relationships between clinicians employed by universities on the one hand and health service staff on the other have been exceptionally close for many years. When I had the privilege of serving first as a clinical consultant in the Northern region, later in a clinical chair and subsequently as dean of a medical school, the integration between the two became very close. Ultimately it was virtually impossible in the deliberations of the board of the faculty of medicine to distinguish the contributions made by those employed by the university from those of staff employed by the NHS, and in the health authorities' deliberations to distinguish the contribution made by the university-employed staff from those of the staff employed by the NHS. That was because of the knock-for-knock agreement through which all
146
members of clincal departments in universities undertake patient care and NHS staff also teach students and do research in university departments and laboratories as well as caring for patients.
One of the crucial points relating to the regional issue is that the planning and distribution of regional specialties is the responsibility of the regional health authorities and will continue to be in the future. Most of the so-called high-technology clinical units for which specialties are provided regionally, such as neurology, neurosurgery, renal transplant and dialysis, cardiology and cardiac surgery, and the very specialised oncology and cancer care units, including those providing bone marrow transplants, are staffed at the senior level largely by university clinical academic staff One must be concerned that under the proposed system of contracts for services some of those units could be put at risk if only because GP budget holders might choose to send patients to less expensive units than to the high quality units provided on a regional basis.
It is therefore essential that the university has a direct role at regional level in decisions which could have an immediate impact on clinical teaching and research and on patient care in key regional specialties.
It is important also not to forget that nowadays much of the clinical teaching of medical students is undertaken in regional hospitals and not in the traditional teaching hospitals. In most of the regions in this country students, for their clinical teaching, are at times distributed throughout the region. It is therefore essential that appropriate safeguards are written into the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested, so that the universities' ability to provide the country with highly trained medical and dental staff, up-to-date research and high levels of patient care is not threatened.
Perhaps I may quote what was said recently by Sir Edward Parkes, chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals:
"Effective delivery of high quality medical and dental education, as required by the Medical Acts, depends on unity of purpose between the NHS and universities at all levels. This can only be achieved if a management structure which makes proper provision for university participation is written into the legislation".
Hence I wish warmly to commend the amendments to the Committee. It is essential that there should be a member drawn from the university or universities in each region on the regional health authority and one, if not two, members nominated by the associated university on district health authorities which have a significant teaching and research commitment. I hope to see a university member on all district health authorities throughout the region.
Earl Russell: On behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches I should like briefly and without unduly gilding the lily to add support to the amendments.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am glad that he said that these amendments are distinct from some of those that follow. This is not a case for representation; this is a case of partnership. There is a difference of

147
function, at the same time working, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said, with unity of purpose.
We have here a good working relationship. The concern of a good many of us is that that working relationship should continue. Once the Bill is on the statute book, I presume that there will be a good deal of change going on within the health service in one way or another. During the progress of that change, it is important that the good working relationship should not be disturbed. It will be much easier to bring that about if consultation can go on at all stages with views heard as early as possible before decisions are taken. In that spirit I should like to support the amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It has been made clear by noble Lords that a number of the functions of universities and health authorities are inseparable. I am not sure that the solution of the problem is as simple as the amendment suggests. The amendment proposes that there should be grafted on to an arrangement, under which people are not representative, representatives of universities. I do not know whether that is possible while not adopting that method for all the other bodies which long to be represented as can be seen from other amendments. However, I hope that some way will be found for the universities to become part of the health authorities. There is no basis for arguing otherwise. I hope that my noble friend will find a way, although I am not sure that the solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, would accord with the strategy of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may make one comment. I hate the word representation and I deliberately avoided it. The test here is simple: if we want the health authorities, in doing their job, to have the highest degree of competence, it is inevitable that that must mean a university representative. Perhaps that word should be deleted from the record; I mean a person who will inevitably be nominated, among others perhaps, by the university and who will ultimately be appointed by the Secretary of State. That is how I look at the matter.
Lord Flowers: I should like to support this group of amendments so ably proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Members of the Committee have made many of the points that I would have wished to put. However, I want to speak for the University of London and its peculiar position with regard to the National Health Service. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his kind remarks about our herculean efforts to put our medical affairs in some semblance of order.
The University of London has to deal with four regional health authorities, 14 district health authorities and eight special health authorities. It has 12 medical schools, three of which are wholly postgraduate, and about 30 major university hospitals are involved in its work as well as many smaller ones. Between them they train about a third of the country's doctors.
148
A case which I could perhaps use to illustrate the complexity of the problem involves our work in the North-East Thames region which contains St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College, the London Hospital Medical College, the University College and Middlesex hospitals, which belong to University College, London, and the Royal Free Hospital Medical School. There are five university hospitals, seven district health authorities, the headquarters of the British Postgraduate Medical Federation, plus several of its seven institutes, seven special health authorities, 12 hospitals and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine together with another hospital.
In this House, only the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and myself know what it is like to be Vice-Chancellor in such a situation. It is not something that I recommend to any other noble Lords. I shall merely say that it is an extremely honourable burden. However, there have been times in my life as Vice-Chancellor when medical affairs have taken up as much as half my time for many months on end. Normally, they take up about a quarter of my time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will say much the same.
The problem arises not from having a medical school, but from having to deal with many district health authorities and four regions and having to try to co-ordinate what goes on on the university front across all that. There is no disagreement among us that university medical schools contribute substantially to health service provision because doctors in the National Health Service and in the medical schools work side by side in providing patient care and in teaching and research. It follows that their policies, specialties and resources must be co-ordinated with those of the health authorities. One cannot run such a system if the policies are determined solely by one side of the partnership, by the National Health Service side or by the university side. Each side must have the deepest possible knowledge of the other and there must be collaboration.
Perhaps the most acute and best illustrated situation concerns capital provision in which regional health authorities will continue to have a major voice. For example, in my case, there is serious discussion about whether there will be a new Bloomsbury teaching hospital. That is the most important and largest capital item in the near future affecting the whole of the University of London, whether the medical or non-medical side. It is a large project. For such projects and for discussion of where specialties are to be found in different medical schools, it is essential that universities are involved in all such matters at the earliest planning stage. Happily, good sense has seen to it that there have been and are continuing consultations about the Bloomsbury hospital that I mentioned, but they should be required by law if we are moving in the direction that the Government have in mind.
Many working arrangements will be facilitated by university membership of boards at district and hospital levels rather than at regional level. I also greatly welcome the improved collaborative arrangements between universities and the National

149
Health Service proposed within the 10 key principles of the France steering group. However, I must emphasise that it is essential that the regional health authorities should also statutorily have knowledge of the problems of medical schools in their regions, if any, by including a member nominated by the appropriate university or universities.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that it is the knowledge of the role played by the medical schools which is of vital importance rather than their representational character. Among the membership of the regional health authority there must be somebody who understands the affairs of a medical school and how they contribute to the National Health Service. Those needs cannot be met simply by the suggestion in the letter of comfort that non-executive members might possibly be drawn from universities. One has to go a little further than that.
I shall not say any more other than summarise by saying that without statutory guarantees, which these amendments will provide, there will be a threat to the ability of universities to provide a secure long-term basis for medical and dental education and research and enable them to make their service contributions, all of which are so vital for the future welfare of the National Health Service.
6 p.m.
Lord Adrian: I am the fourth person to put my name to this amendment. As I said at Second Reading, I believe that the proposed management boards need a more specific structure. My direct experience in these matters is nothing like as great as that of either of the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Flowers, but I have had some brief experience at Cambridge. In effect, as has already been said, many specialties provided at medical schools are made use of by health service patients in the whole of a region.
I agree with what has been said from all sides of the Chamber; namely, that it will lead to very great difficulties if regional management does not have a university presence and an input from the university. I agree also that it should not be specifically a representation of the university.
Cambridge medical school was founded about 20 years ago and has since been developing greatly. It attracts substantial funds from charity and industry to support more than half-a-dozen professorships in specialties of various kinds over and above those provided by the University Funding Council. The posts all carry honorary consultancies at Addenbrooke's Hospital. Also, the regional board has assisted developments in the medical school itself As was pointed out, the university contributes substantial resources and people to the health service. It must be able to join in the management decisions.
In the past that was done by the presence of the regius professor of physic, as we somewhat quaintly call our senior medical professor. Noble Lords will know that the chair was founded by Henry VIII and was recently occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield (who is sitting immediately in front of
150
me and who I am sure will speak much more knowledgeably than I about what has gone on).
The presence of the regius professor on the regional hospital board has meant that there has been a very productive integration of the joint resources brought to the whole enterprise of the National Health Service by the health service and the university. Services in the eastern region have been developed in a splendid spirit of co-ordination and by agreement. I have to question whether that can continue to be achieved, especially now that resources on both sides are less available than they were in some periods in the past. I question whether that kind of constructive relationship can easily continue without a university presence on the National Health Service authorities.
Lord Butterfield: I am tempted to make a few remarks to the Committee. I am very grateful to my colleague and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, for identifying me as someone in the succession started by Henry VIII in 1540. With great respect, I say to the Minister that it is terribly important that there should be integration between the teaching side and the performing side—the National Health Service and the universities.
I support the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who said that it was absolutely vital that we should get the relationship between the universities and the National Health Service right. In Cambridge we tried what I think may have lain behind the original drafting of this Bill; namely, the university liaison committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred. It used to meet once or twice a year. The meetings were very unsatisfactory because they were never in phase with the political, planning and financial interests of the regional members. We did not get properly into the planning cycle. Eventually they were given up because we were never able to tie things together.
That is one reason why I believe that the Committee and the Government will give serious consideration to welding together the universities and other members of the new authorities. What really made things go in Cambridge—I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, for referring to it—was when I had the confidence, as a member of the regional health authority in Cambridge, to become intimately related with its officers, the treasurer and the regional medical officer. We began to integrate and plan our joint use of resources in, to my view, an increasingly better way. Indeed, in the famous France statement about the relationship between the medical schools and the NHS, which I think came out last month, reference was specifically made to the joint planning of the use of resources that had come about in Cambridge.
At this point I should like to pay sincere tribute to those regional medical officers, Dr. Duncan and Dr. O'Brien, who made it easier for us to decide which chairs to set up next. It also gave us a little authority with the benefactors when we could say, "This has been discussed in detail with the regional health authority. It would like to see the development of a chair in, say, clinical gerontology, to get exciting research going in that particular field". So I should

151
like to join with other much more experienced and able noble Lords to urge that this clutch of amendments be looked at very closely.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Eminent noble Lords have moved this amendment. Perhaps I may ask two very brief questions, one of which may be a little wide but is still of interest. Not long ago I had the pleasure of opening a small university unit in Leeds—a paediatric dental unit. The professor in charge of the unit was worried that in the future he might be short of teaching material.
I feel that there should be a link with the regions. What will happen if the teaching material is not available for the doctors and the dentists? My other question is concerned with the universities being short of money. Would it be reasonable for the private sector to contribute something because it benefits from the teaching and research of both doctors and dentists? Those are my questions.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness from my experience on the question of getting private money into university teaching hospitals. To a certain extent that is achieved by many of the full-time academic staff being allowed to do some private practice provided that it is consonant with the policy of the school concerned and provided that the fees come to the school. There has been some discussion recently—the universities felt rather strongly about it—about the proportion of private practice fees which can be used for personal gain. It was felt that the issue might derogate considerably from the universities' motive in continuing their own research. There is a nice balance to be held. It is another reason for having a forum in which both sides are present as of right to hammer out the problems between them.
Baroness Hooper: These amendments are indeed important. We have heard the views of some very important people in the course of our discussion this afternoon.
The Government recognise the need for effective joint working between the National Health Service and universities. Indeed, the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health chairs the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education to which my noble friend Lady Young referred when moving the amendment, one of whose main purposes is to achieve just this aim of effective joint working. On 28th February the Permanent Secretary wrote to all health service general managers directing their attention to the importance of ensuring close and effective working between universities and the National Health Service. He enclosed the key principles to be observed and illustrative models for organisational arrangements. The measure was based on recommendations from the steering group which had been endorsed by the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Science. Copies were sent to the universities.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is fully committed to the maintenance of high standards of medical and dental education and
152
research and recognises that effective collaboration between universities at all levels and parts of the National Health Service is essential to the maintenance of these standards.
I recognise that in a sense universities are a special case when bringing money to the table. They contribute to the National Health Service and the National Health Service also makes a contribution to supporting medical education. That interdependence is reflected in the long established knock-for-knock funding arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred. It underlines the importance of collaboration between the two areas.
The Permanent Secretary's steering group, to which I have referred, continued to look at the best ways to facilitate and improve that collaboration. The recently promulgated 10 principles which were welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, deal with how to achieve that aim. They have been widely distributed.
On regional and district health authorities, as I said in speaking to a previous amendment, our reforms aim to resolve the fundamental confusion which exists at present as to whether these bodies are representative or managerial. A key problem at the moment is that many members seem to regard themselves as representatives of the bodies which nominated or appointed them. Under our proposals both regional and district health authorities will be reduced in size and the managers will also be members of the authority for the first time. We believe that this will provide a single focus for effective decision-making which will enable the newly constituted authorities to tackle the changes and challenges that the remainder of our reforms will introduce.
I repeat that no member will be appointed on a representative basis but solely on the basis of the personal contribution and experience that he or she can bring to the work of the authority. Nevertheless, because of the importance that the Government attach to medical education and research, special provision will be made in regulations so that teaching districts in England must have one of their non-executive members drawn from a university. In Wales, where the structure of the health service is different and there is no regional tier, all nine districts will have a university member. That is why paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the Bill allows the relevant regulations to be made. The Notes on Clauses which accompany the Bill make that clear and clarify the Government's intention to use them in this way. As now, the details of health authority membership will be set out in regulations. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept my assurance that we intend to use the regulations in that way.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 31 relate to district health authorities. I emphasise once again the Government's intention to create small authorities. While it is our intention to make special provision for university membership of teaching districts, I am afraid that to provide generally for two university members could adversely affect the balance of membership, at the very least on the smaller authorities.

153
We have already in many ways made the universities a special case with regard to district health authority membership. To go further would not be compatible with the reforms that we are making in the health authority membership.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred to Hammersmith Hospital and special health authority status. We may be dealing with that matter in more detail during discussion of Amendment No. 37A. However, I can assure my noble friend that the special health authority for Hammersmith, as the special health authority for all the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, will have a non-executive member drawn from the relevant postgraduate institute of the university.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, responded to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the private sector. His responses were very helpful and I thank him. I believe that the question of teaching material is one that can well be dealt with as a result of the collaborative process to which I have referred as a result of the Permanent Secretary's steering committee.
On regional health authorities, I emphasise that then: will be absolutely nothing to prevent someone from the appropriate university being appointed as a non-executive member on a personal basis. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, should not discount this. Indeed, in a number of cases we expect that that will be so. However, it is not the Government's wish to be any more prescriptive about health authority membership than is absolutely necessary. I am not convinced that the only way to achieve more effective co-operation between these bodies—which I believe we all earnestly wish for—is to have a statutory university membership of regional health authorities as proposed by the amendment.
I cannot therefore at this stage accept the amendment or the others grouped with it. However, I recognise that some very powerful views have been expressed in the course of the Committee's discussion on these amendments. I shall look very carefully at all the arguments that have been advanced to see whether it is possible at a later stage to receive the general approbation of the Committee for some course of action to allay any anxieties in this respect.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will clarify one point. There is a grave danger that we shall become bogged down over the use of the word "representative". Surely she agrees—and I should be grateful if she would say so—that there is a great difference between people being representatives on a health authority because they represent a local authority, a trade union or some other worthy body, and being representatives because they are from a teaching university which is part and parcel of the health work of the country. ! They are not animals of the same species. Does the noble Baroness agree that we would be able to think clearly about the matter if we made a distinction and that we should not talk about universities being
154
represented? People from universities should be on the health authority because of their special knowledge and expertise and because they can contribute to the working of the authority. There is no parallel with any of the other groups who might claim to be represented.
Baroness Hooper: I hoped that I had made it clear that I consider universities to be a special case.
Lord Peston: I did not intervene earlier because the relevant arguments were put most cogently by Members of the Committee who spoke and I had nothing to add. Their arguments were overwhelmingly correct. I also wanted to hear the Minister's reply in the hope that she would accept the amendments or say that the Government intend to draft similar amendments to the same purpose. She did not confirm my worst fears by saying that everything can be done via regulations and ad hoc decisions by the Secretary of State. But she went some way down that road. That is a method which I find quite unacceptable given the overwhelmingly correct nature of the arguments put forward.
However, at the end of her reply, the Minister offered a completely different solution by saying that she would think about the amendments and perhaps they or similar amendments would be acceptable to the Government. If that is the case it would be a correct and rational response to the powerful arguments put to her. In particular, it would remove the suspicion that I often have when dealing with such Bills; that amendments as excellent as this are rejected because the Secretary of State or, even worse, the Civil Service finds them a little inconvenient.
I do not know what is now proposed by those Members who tabled the amendment. In my judgment, if the Minister is saying that she will think about the matter and that the Government might have an open mind about amendments proposing that people from universities would definitely be on the authority—not as a result of regulations or because the Secretary of State said so—then we need not divide at this stage. However, if she is not saying that we cannot let the matter go. Therefore, can the Minister tell the Committee exactly what the Government propose?
Baroness Hooper: We are all agreed about the aim of the amendments to ensure effective collaboration between the universities and the National Health Service. I have tried to explain the reason why the Government have approached the matter as set out in the Bill and why we believe it to be unnecessary to introduce such provisions. Nevertheless, having listened to the powerful arguments, I shall do my best to meet as many as possible. It may be that there are more ways than one of dealing with the situation. I shall do my best to come back with an effective solution.
Lord Beloff: Before we leave the series of amendments I wish to put forward a point raised most recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. There is a confusion which my noble friend has not

155
wholly allayed to my satisfaction. It is between the notion of representation and what is advocated by the universities. The point is not whether so-and-so is a nominee of a university or a medical school or in some way represents them. Indeed, one cannot represent an institution as large as a medical school or university. The point is that the university contribution to the health service, which the Minister has accepted as being fundamental to our discussions, is a complicated issue. Only someone who has been, and is, personally involved in that can bring to a management board such expertise.
In recent years we have frequently discussed universities in this Chamber. There appears to be a fundamental unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to accept the fact that expert knowledge may be essential, even for a board of management. One cannot simply produce five people and say, "They will be splendid managers but none of them has ever been in a hospital or discussed with a professor the way in which his research may contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge."
I believe that Members opposite who have spoken are attempting to insist that there should be a statutory provision for such specialised knowledge to be available to any authority which must make decisions in the medical field and that they cannot be made without that.
I wish to bring some balance to this discussion of the universities. Cambridge has had a large share of the debate. When I came up to the University of Oxford in 1932—the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, were senior to me—medicine was a relatively small part of the university's affairs. If one mentioned Oxford in the United States or anywhere abroad, medicine was not the first subject that came into people's minds. However, the situation has been transformed by a series of initiatives such as the private munificence of the late Lord Nuffield and the contribution of major, particularly overseas, foundations. Members have spoken of the input of money. A great deal has come from the medical foundations as well as from the Government and the collaboration to which the noble Baroness referred. It is a complex subject which must be at the fingertips of people who are to direct research and teaching in the future.
Finance and the saving of money appears to appeal most to Ministers and perhaps that is understandable. Therefore, I wish to remind the Minister that the way in which we shall reduce spending on health care will be proportional to the results achieved in medical research. For example, medical research has enabled the length of stay of patients to be cut down notably. The impresssion sometimes given, although not by my noble friend this evening, is that medical research is a kind of ornament at the top of the pyramid. That is totally unreal even if thought of in financial terms.
I beg my noble friend to go back to her colleagues and point out that in this Chamber we attach the utmost importance to professional expertise even in managerial bodies.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It appears that we are arguing about the wrong issue. If we wish to have the expertise of universities involved in the authority it may be that the right way is to have ex officio members. My noble friend may come back with the idea that someone from the universities could be a member on the authority ex officio. We have ex officio the chief officer of the authority and certain other officers who will be prescribed. The style of management and the role of universities which is intended in all of this would indicate to me, were I the chairman, that I should rather like to have an ex officio member and not a representative at all. Perhaps my noble friend regards that as an option. I hope that we shall not vote on this amendment and adopt it because, as I believe I indicated in a previous brief intervention, I am not sure that that is the best way of dealing with the matter. The point has been made and I think my noble friend has accepted it. If she has not, we shall certainly make sure that she accepts it at a later stage; namely, the point that the universities should be there in a managerial function because there is a shared function between university and health authority. It seems to me that there are a number of ways to go about this and the amendment is not necessarily the best way.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may make a few observations at this point. I do not believe that it is realised that what is proposed in the Bill is an attenuation of what already exists in terms of the universities' involvement in the health authorities. The Minister said—and I believe I heard this correctly—that there is nothing to prevent universities somehow being drawn in as non-executive directors if they were trusts (which is provided for) or drawn into the boards. That is quite different from there being a requirement.
The way to look at this matter is that we have an actual and necessary partnership of two people contributing to the same enterprise. They are making different but overlapping and interlocking contributions. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that both be present when decisions are made which affect the other. That is the reason for wanting a requirement.
I should mention that in many countries that is recognised by the universities carrying out their own teaching in their own hospitals which they run and manage in order to secure that degree of control of policy, educational standards, and so on. We are not arguing for the system which operates in Germany, the Netherlands or indeed in the university hospitals in the United States but merely for the retention of what we already have and enjoy and of which good use has been made.
Baroness Young: We have had a very useful debate on this extremely important subject. I begin by thanking particularly the noble Lords, Lord Walton, Lord Dainton and Lord Adrian, who attached their names to this amendment, for all that they have said. They have spoken from a wealth of expertise and knowledge of the relationship between

157
universities and the National Health Service. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for his contribution. He spoke about London and the circumstances there. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for what he said about the University of Cambridge and its relationship with the National Health Service. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate for their support.
I turn now to what my noble friend on the Front Bench said in winding up this debate. It seems to me that the issue and the problem is that which has been identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Beloff; namely, what is the appropriate word to use for the relationship between universities and the National Health Service?
I hope that what I said in my opening remarks made it clear that I fully understand what the Government intend in this Bill and what they propose for both regional and district authorities. That is quite clearly laid down. I realise that people will fuel very strongly about this. They will not wish to support a lot of representatives from organisations, no matter how important or valuable those organisations may be, because that is cutting across the whole principle of the Bill. I see that argument very clearly indeed.
However, the argument about the universities is not that argument at all but is quite separate. I believe that it would be very unfortunate to use the word "representative". I have looked again rather carefully at what the Bill says about trusts. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, quite properly pointed out, it is quite illogical to write on the face of the | Bill something about the links with the universities and a trust and not to do it in the case of the regions or the districts. Therefore, if my noble friend considers that point she will see that there is now a real inconsistency on the face of the Bill which needs to be addressed.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin quite properly pointed out, we are not really talking about representatives but about people who are part of the management of the whole of the National Health Service. They are not representatives but managers. They may not be termed managers on one definition but I believe that I could easily defend the fact that they have a management role. They have such a role in teaching, in research and in the use of money because, as I said, they are the only organisations which bring money to the table. That is money which comes from the DES, charities, trusts, teaching and all sorts of sources. They bring all that into the National Health Service. Therefore, they are a very real part of the management team.
That is the important point which has emerged from this debate. I should like to leave that with my noble friend Lady Hooper. I appreciate what she said. I tried to make a note of it. I shall read it very carefully. She said that collaboration with the universities is essential and that the universities are a special case. She said, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, repeated it, that there was nothing to prevent a university member being represented in a
158
personal capacity. I believe that that is the anxiety of everybody. What is really needed in this management team is for the universities to be locked into the management team and for that to be set out on the face of the Bill both at regional and district levels so that it is seen in that capacity.
I believe that that is a quite separate case from anything else. It is not only that those people are part of a management team. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, quite properly said, they bring specialised knowledge. That is also very important.
Therefore, I was very grateful for what my noble friend said at the end of her remarks. I am grateful to her for saying that she will take back this amendment, think about it again and, I am sure, discuss it with her right honourable friend. I am sure that she will recognise the strength of feeling in this Committee on a matter which is designed to make the Bill work better in the interests of the patients. That is the object of this amendment. It is not aimed in any way at going against the principle set out in the Bill, which I can quite understand my noble friend cannot go against.
On the strength of my noble friend's undertakings and because there will be time between now and Report to consider and discuss the points raised, I shall not press the amendment this evening. I think it is right that this matter should be considered further. However, in withdrawing the amendment I hope that she will appreciate the strength of feeling and that this question will not go away unless we are offered a satisfactory solution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("including one hospital consultant, one general medical practitioner, and one nurse, each appointed in consultation with professional advisory bodies within the Region.").
The noble Lord said: I fully appreciate that in the terms of the Bill as now drafted it would be anathema in a sense to refer to representation of specific individuals, groups or interests in the health authority's future. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has already fired a salvo across the Chamber suggesting that he would be prepared to oppose all amendments which have been proposed suggesting that individuals should be appointed to health authorities representing certain sectarian interests.
Let me make quite clear that under this amendment and the others which are grouped with it, to which I shall also speak, it is not intended that these individuals should represent specific interests. The purpose underlying these amendments is that health authorities of the future should have available to them the appropriate professional advice among their membership to enable them to fulfil their functions as defined in the Bill. The intention is to make clear that appropriate professionals should be included within the non-executive membership.
For 40 years the basic information on the costings and effectiveness of the NHS has been grossly inadequate, and the case for improving all aspects of

159
management is therefore compelling. Appreciating that need, the recommendation of the Griffiths Report introduced into the service a much stronger management structure and greatly improved the quality of the managers who face, now and in the future, a massive task.
Health care management differs from business management in many respects. As well as a continual striving towards rapid cures made possible through the advances of modem medicine, the ethos of medical practice requires humanitarian support of all those individuals who cannot be cured. Patients must not only be treated, but must feel and be seen to be cared for. The best management policy for an individual cannot always be based on currently available scientific data on population groups. That is usually incomplete and sometimes misleading. Epidemiology and statistics are valuable tools, but are not the masters of good medical practice.
We heard about the importance of teaching and research in the NHS in the amendments concerning the role of universities, but there continues to be a credibility gap which has unfortunately developed, particularly in certain situations, between management on the one hand and the other professions in the National Health Service on the other.
I wish to stress that in moving this amendment and in speaking to those which are coupled with it, I do not seek to have representatives of professional groups within health authorities. The intention, as I said, is to have the appropriate professionals who can advise managers on important medical and other professional aspects of health care in the future. The case for developing and the obvious need to develop a real partnership between managers and health professions at all levels is absolutely crucial to the future of the National Health Service. Until the health professions have an essential role in the basic development of the new system at the policy-making level, especially concerning the quality of services to be provided as well as in the supervision of the practical aspects of the care of patients, the detailed organisation of the system could well fail. It could be based on theory and not on practice.
Over the past few years full credit must be given to many managers for warming to the task of trying to understand how doctors care for patients, and to many doctors for attempting to become managerially literate. However, that does not mean that each can do the job of the other. The argument that hospital doctors and other hospital-based professions cannot be a party to district or regional policy-making purchaser decisions because they are providers, is fundamentally flawed as exemplified by the dual role for general practitioners. On the one hand, the GP will be a purchaser, perhaps with a budget; on the other, he will be working side by side in the care of his patients with the providing clinician hospital based.
It is important that the wisdom of hospital-based clinicians be available through the membership of health authorities. Promises of seeking their advice from time to time are not adequate. The way forward is that the health professions as a whole must be
160
made a part of the decision-making machinery in the future health service. A real partnership with management and government must include listening, respect and adaptibility that is mutual. Only by harnessing professional expertise and experience can any real progress be made in finding new ways of improving the quality of patient care and preventing illness.
The important point underlying my amendment and those coupled with it, to which other noble Lords have added their names, is that there should be the inclusion of a reasonable number of individuals with clinical and teaching experience at every level of management, including units, districts, hospital trusts and regions. There must be an appropriate number of members on district or regional authorities who are clinicians or other members of health caring professions.
If one looks at these amendments, essentially Amendment No. 5A is more prescriptive in the sense that it suggests that there should be a hospital consultant, a general medical practitioner and a nurse not appointed as representatives, but appointed in consultation with professional advisory bodies within the region. I hope that every member of health authorities in the future will be prepared to act as an independent voice not representing any particular section or interest, but there simply with the purpose of improving the health care facilities provided in the region or district as a whole.
With regard to the amendments coupled with Amendment No. 5A, Amendment No, 17 is much less prescriptive. It simply requires, as an alternative to Amendment No. 5A that the Secretary of State shall consult, when making appointments:
"such bodies as he may recognise as being, either in that region or generally, representative respectively of medical practitioners, dental practitioners"
and members of the other caring professions. It is much less prescriptive. The amendments coupled with that on the Marshalled List related to similar provisions in district health authorities and the district health authorities in Wales. Amendments Nos. 38, 41, 49 and 52 relate to the family health service authorities.
Let me make clear that in moving Amendment No. 5A I do not seek—nor do those who added their names to the amendment—representation on health authorities of specific sectional or professional interests. I simply seek to persuade the Government that in some way it may be prescribed within the Bill that approriate professional knowledge and expertise be made available to the health service in the future through membership of these respective authorities. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I support these amendments and urge the Committee to consider them sympathetically because I believe their provisions are essential for ensuring appropriate care for the wide range of patients and clients for whom the regional, district and family health service authorities will be responsible.
The amendments specify that certain professions should be included in the groups of people who are

161
to be appointed by the chairmen, those chairmen who themselves will have been appointed by the Secretary of State. That is entirely consistent with the aims and objectives of government policy in general, which include the principle of devolution of responsibility from the centre to the periphery, in this case, to the professionals who will actually be providing the services and be responsible for care. It will enable them to contribute to the formation of the policies which they will be implementing.
The amendments are also entirely consistent with the Government's commitment to the principles of accountability by bringing professionals into the domain of decision-making. Also, and conversely, the exclusion of people with such experience and expertise appears to be not only flying in the face of those principles of devolution and accountability, but is also surely indefensible in that it denies such bodies the benefit of clinical knowledge and experience which are essential for formulating the most appropriate policies and for anticipating the effects of policies which are under consideration.
In complex organisations such as health authorities the repercussions of policy changes are far-reaching and may cause real suffering if all the potential side-effects are not taken into account. Those who are best able to forestall or to anticipate such side effects are those in the front line of care with a clinical knowledge to anticipate unintended consequences.
I offer one example from a local level to illustrate the general point I am trying to make. I was recently very disturbed to receive a letter from a ward sister. She described to me how she had experienced a situation where a local policy decision required elderly patients in a rehabilitation ward to be relocated in a busy surgical ward. It might be argued that hospital beds are hospital beds, and that those elderly people were still receiving nursing care. However, not only was the hurly-burly of a busy surgical ward a totally inappropriate environment for the rehabilitation of long-stay elderly patients; their problems were compounded by the fact that the basic equipment and facilities were totally inappropriate for them. There were no hoists to help them when bathing and the doors leading to the lavatories were too narrow for their wheelchairs. So a decision made on what might appear to be rational management grounds of bed occupancy resulted in dismay and distress for some very vulnerable people.
I quote only one example; I could give many others. I wish simply to illustrate the need for policy makers to have the benefit of members within their bodies who have professional and clinical experience. They should be available to contribute to every stage of policy making. Schedule 1 to the Bill does not exclude the membership of such professionals explicitly; but it does not require it nor provide in any specific way for their inclusion. I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. We are not talking about representation in the sense of representing specific sectional interests. What we are talking about is making available to these key decision-making bodies the most appropriate professional and clinical expertise to enable them to be most effective in their policy
162
making and also, in terms of cost effectiveness, the most effective purchasers of resources.
I should like to speak for a moment for my own profession of nursing where it is felt that such an exclusion is ominous in the wake of the exclusion by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of nurses from his own policy board. The precedent that he has set gives my colleagues in the nursing profession little confidence that their contribution will be valued in the future. Yet nursing has much to contribute to health care planning and to policy making. In many settings nurses are the only staff having direct contact with patients 24 hours a day 365 days a year. The insights they gain from this experience enable them to identify needs for services and also to witness the practical results of policies. That information is invaluable in considering and assessing policies. In addition, in the new more market-driven approach to health care envisaged in the Bill, there are good economic reasons for ensuring a nursing input to health authorities. As authorities draw up their contracts for services they are likely to find that nursing costs represent the single largest element within their budgets. At present nursing costs account for more than one-third of the average district health authority budget, so direct experience of nursing services will therefore be essential if authorities are to manage their affairs most effectively.
In conclusion, my noble friend the Minister may well say that the amendments are not necessary as the chairman of the authorities may choose to include clinical professional staff In that case the amendments merely clarify an intention and are therefore beneficial. They put on the face of the Bill what is intended. But if it is the purpose of the Bill as it now stands to allow chairman not to appoint such professional members, then we believe that the amendments are essential for the provision of adequate care for those who are in real danger of suffering if decisions are made without the benefit of clinical professional expertise and experience.
Lord Ennals: I wish to support all that has been said by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who moved the amendment. It may be argued by some that they are doing special pleading on behalf of their own professions. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that they are doing special pleading on behalf of the patients whom they serve, for whom they care and whom they understand.
I appreciated the earlier intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, concerning representatives. I wish to examine that point too. No one is suggesting that there should be within the new health authorities some external bodies which appoint people to represent those interests on the authorities. I do not believe that there should be delegates appointed by someone else and reporting back to someone else about how they are fulfilling their duties. I say that, and I shall say it later, in relation to other people whose experience should be available.
At a later stage I shall be arguing the case for experience in a number of different fields. I know that there is some contention across the Committee

163
about the nature of the new health authorities. I believe that health authorities are too large, but I fundamentally disagree with the concept of creating a tightly knit group of managers sitting with non-executive members of the business community and creating a management divorced both from those for whom they work and from those with whom they work. There is a fundamental difference. I do not know the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, or the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, agree with my view, but we have gone this far regarding the amendment before us.
One of my colleagues in another place spoke about the proposals before us in a manner that I commend. He said:
"My understanding of the schedule is as follows. The Minister appoints the non-executive members of regional health authorities and the chairs of the district health authorities, who are paid. The members of the regional health authorities appointed by the Minister then appoint a general manager, and together they appoint the rest of the regional health authority, which then appoints the non-executive members of the district health authority, who are also paid. The non-executive members of the district health authority who have been appointed by the regional health authority and the chair of the district health authority whom the Minister himself has appointed, all of whom are paid, then appoint the general manager of the district health authority. Then the district general manager with the non-executive members of the district health authority appoint the other executive members of the district health authority".
This is a tightly knit group which can be—
Lord Peston: Politically motivated!
Lord Ennals: My noble friend says "politically motivated". But my fear is that this group will be out of touch with reality. We argued earlier that people should come on to the authority, whether as appointees or by invitation because of their experience. In running a health authority one needs the experience of people who know of particular interests. One needs doctors, nurses and people who work in the community who have some knowledge of voluntary organisations. We need people who have some knowledge of the work done by local authorities in community care. If we go too far we shall set up bodies which are out of touch and isolated from those with whom they work, insensitive and too conscious of cost cutting, and cut off from the human needs of the patients whom they serve.
Sometimes it seems that we forget what the health service is about. It is about providing service for patients. It is absolutely essential that the voice of the doctors, of the nurses and perhaps of other professional groups is heard. They cannot all be there. More and more the professions understand each other and work as a team. Of course they should not all be there. The nurses are perhaps the most representative of all. At present too much in the Bill is left to the Secretary of State and his advisers. I believe that we need to open up and not tighten up the management team. It has a lot of resources to manage but I do not believe that it can do its job as if its members were directors of a private firm or public limited company. We are not running a commercial firm. We are running a national health service.
164
If the Government were to say that they were conducting a few experiments of different types of structures, I might say that we should try this type of structure as well as other types of structure. However, that is not the case. They are proposing to introduce right across the country something which is untried and untested. We shall talk about that on a later amendment. I believe that this amendment is absolutely right. One has to start with the patients and those who work with them: their presence is essential.
7 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: One is tempted to refer to a report one made in 1973 to a Conservative Government recommending medical managers. The consequence at that time was consensus management. I do not know how much coffee and tea was consumed during that period though I think the amount was substantial.
This amendment is also linked with Amendments Nos. 17 and 28 with which my name is connected. I find this matter very restricted. I wish briefly to refer to the wording of Amendment No. 17, which states that,
"the Secretary of State shall consult … bodies as he may recognise as being … representative … of medical and other professions".
My interpretation is that the movers of this amendment are trying to get the Government to do what we failed to do in 1973; namely, to find medical managers. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell us whether they are looking for professional people to put on the board from any part of the health service and who are managerially competent?
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment very strongly primarily because I am a non-medical person. Indeed my personal experience is biased very much more in the direction of the business manager. Many of my best friends can be found in that field and not in the medical world. It is because I claim to know a little about the decision-making process in policy-making and management bodies that I am absolutely convinced that professional medical people should be on the board.
I know that the Minister will tell us that the professional people will be asked to give advice. That is the oldest trick in the book for keeping out the people whose knowledge should be available. Advice can be asked for in a thousand different ways and it can be listened to or not. There is no obligation on the people who ask for the advice to explain why they have accepted or rejected it. To suggest that to ask for the advice of the medical profession is any substitute at all for their being on the board is crass nonsense.
The reason I am so anxious that medical professional people should be on the board is that we in this Committee have all been on boards of one kind or another. We know that what matters is that in the cut and thrust of the arguments that take place before a decision is reached every point of view should be put forward. Unless we are obstinate to a degree, we are all prepared at that stage to adjust our point of view according to the facts and the

165
arguments that are presented as the discussion goes on. Very rarely does one come to a conclusion with which one agrees and which is exactly the same as the point of view one held at the beginning.
It is in the process of decision-making and at that point only that it is absolutely vital for professional opinion to be available. It is no good asking for professional advice beforehand and not taking it; it is no use seeking that advice after the decision has been made and then listening reluctantly to what is said. At that time the decision has been made and it is too late. The professional people have to be involved in that vital, constructive and creative process of working through the objections of all the different groups and listening to all the contributions from people with specialist knowledge. There should be business managers, but there should also be medical professionals as well. In those circumstances a decision can be arrived at and it will be the best decision that can be made.
Do not let us hear any argument that it is a substitute for medical professional people on the board to allow them the opportunity to give advice. The professional people have to be on the board if the decisions are to be right. That is not in their own interests but in order that the decision should be the right one for the patients.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to be the first voice that disagrees with what has so far been a chorus of approval for these amendments. I do not want to speak at length. I have listened to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said and no doubt she will give a very reasoned refutation. I wish to make two or three short points.
I honestly believe that those who have tabled these amendments and spoken in their support have not yet taken fully on board the fundamental policy that underlies the White Paper for which this Bill provides the legislative framework. The point was made in an earlier debate that it is the distinction beteen the purchaser and the provider. Those who have spoken have tended to see the health authorities as fulfilling much the same function as the existing authorities.
However, under the new dispensation it will be a markedly different function and it will also develop into a markedly different one. The new measures will not start fully fledged on 1st April next and no one would reasonably expect that. People will take time to work into the new system. For the first time under our National Health Service the role of the health authority will be separate and distinct from the role of those who are running the hospitals, the community services and those who will be providing the services under agreements in the manner provided for in the Bill.
In those circumstances it seems to me that there has to be a clear distinction between the purchasers and the providers; otherwise—as I suggested earlier in the point which I made and to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, responded—those involved will be faced with a hopeless conflict of interest. That is perhaps the answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear; namely,
166
there is an inevitable human tendency that one will look after one's own interests. One of the major features of the public services generally, not only in this country but elsewhere, is the innate tendency for those in their employ to identify their own interests with those of the people whom they serve.
One has heard the argument over and over again: "You only need to pay us better and then the patient will get a better service". I need not dwell on the matter in detail. That is the fundamental point that underlies the philosophy of the White Paper and the Bill. I do not believe that the speeches made so far recognise the fact. I will give way to the noble Lord, but I have not finished.
Lord Ennals: Can the noble Lord accept that there are some of us who understand the purpose of the White Paper but who believe that the argument is simply unproven?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: As long as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, makes it clear that in moving this amendment he is not trying to approve the scheme in the White Paper but trying to perpetuate the present arrangements, we shall understand what he is saying. He has made it clear that he opposes the scheme put forward in the White Paper. Therefore, the amendments to which he has put his name follow logically.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said at the beginning of his speech that no one is going to suggest, as regards any of these amendments, that any one should be respresentative of particular interests. In a few moments we shall come to Amendment No. 7 concerning staff. It states:
"which shall include at least one person representative of NHS staff".
He has a representative of the users of the service. Whatever he says, he is trying to argue for representative membership and his later amendments make that clear.
The only other point I would make is in answer to a point made by my noble friend Lady Cox who has repeated an argument which I have often heard from her professional colleagues. I have to say that I find myself increasingly puzzled by it and to some extent unsympathetic. The argument is that unless nurses are appointed at every tier of management it means that the Government, the public or the health service do not value their services. I have listened to that argument from the nursing bodies as I am sure has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. It cannot be right to feel that you have to have a statutory nurse on every body; otherwise they will feel slighted and rejected. That is not true. The question is whether they will make a valuable contribution to the management body, to the work of the body to which one is making appointments. If the answer to that is yes, then it is open to the Secretary of State, or to the chairman as the case may be, to ensure that appropiate people with the necessary professional qualifications, where there are no conflicts of interest, be appointed.
That is the thrust of the White Paper. It is the main thrust of the Bill. Therefore, these amendments are quite inconsistent with it. I hope that my noble

167
friend will not feel seduced by the arguments—powerful and eloquent though they may have been—to depart from those principles.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make a point which I think comes better from a totally non-medical person with no particular sympathies for the medical profession. I entirely agree with what he has said. I am not asking that nurses be there because they will feel hurt if they are not there. I do not mind whether they feel hurt or not.
I am saying that if you want proper decision making and to arrive at the best decisions you need the ingredient of their knowledge in order to make the decisions. As I understand it, that is what the noble Lord said he wanted. He said that if that is necessary the Secretary of State will appoint them. If the Secretary of State agrees that it is necessary, why is it not in the Bill already? That is why we are trying to put it in. We must assume that the Secretary of State does not believe in it. That is why we want the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: As the noble Baroness has intervened in my speech, it seems to me only right to say that if it is included in the Bill in the form that is sought by this amendment and other subsequent amendments, it then becomes mandatory in every case and is seen as statutory.
That is what the Secretary of State is trying to get away from. I tried to get away from it 10 years ago and singularly failed because I was trying to work within a structure where the purchasers and providers were the same people. The attraction of the White Paper is that it now recognises that there are two separate functions here and that therefore there are separate roles for the various people involved.
Baroness Cox: As my noble friend misrepresented me perhaps I may correct him. What I tried to say—the point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—was that nurses are not interested in being represented for the sake of their own self-interest, self-esteem and self-aggrandizement. Their concern is for the patients and quality of patient care, and for the knowledge, expertise and first-hand experience they can bring, both in terms of the implication of policy making and also, as I tried to indicate, of the financial implications for nursing services, which are enormous.
The contribution of nurses to the policy-making bodies is essential at every stage of the decision-making process, along with other key professional clinical imputs, for the right decisions to be made for patients and also, if we are talking about the bodies as being purchasers, for the purchasers of services to be as well informed as possible about the value of what it is they are purchasing. Their information is crucial to enable the purchasers to do an efficient and effective job.
So to put the record straight on behalf of my profession, that was not their concern. Their concern was for the quality of services provided for patients and clients.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: I should like to support this group of amendents, and Amendments Nos. 38, 41, 49 and 52 in particular which relate to the family health services authorities.
I am perfectly well aware, as I think we all are, although Lord Jenkin does not seem to think so, that the Bill aims to separate purchasers from providers. This is a policy to which I am opposed as I am not convinced that it will work. In fact, I think it is likely to create more problems and expense than it would avoid. But I am willing to let it be tried out in a small number of districts.
Even if we want to try that separation policy, it will be extremely difficult to operate in the administration of the family health services authorities. My noble friend Lord Walton said that that would be so with regard to budget holding GPs, but it would also be extremely difficult to maintain such separation for the whole of the family health service. For instance, the new contract requires a close involvement between GPs, the whole of the primary care team and the administering authority.
The amendment to which I have put down my name, Amendment No. 41, is an excessively modest one. It simply suggests that the FHSA should include a specified number of health care professionals appointed in consultation with appropriate professional bodies. It allows the Secretary of State quite a lot of leeway. It allows for representation of those most concerned—I am sorry, "representation" is not a word I am allowed to use—it allows for membership of the authority of those most concerned with the carrying out of the functions of the FHSA. That is in the area where it most matters as regards the actual giving of patient care.
A practitioner, whether a nurse, dentist, pharmacist or GP, is aware of what is necessary at the point of implementation. Such people can give experienced advice to other members of the authority on the practicality of any proposed measures. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spelt this out extremely clearly with an example concerning a change in a hospital. I suggest that if professionals are absent the discussions within the FHSA will tend to be unreal, authoritarian and bureaucratic. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has given us an extremely good lesson in how management should be carried out and the value of discussions between people from different disciplines. If those professional experts are not there to take a real part in the discussions the decisions will be wrong, and their absence will lead to difficulties, misunderstandings and resentment. In do not think that that is the way to administer a health service, or any service for that matter.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Jenkin. He said that when he was Secretary of State he tried to depart from the usual structure of management. He has forgotten that in fact he succeeded in one area in doing just that. He replaced an area health authority with five commissioners. Not one of them was a doctor or a nurse. None of them represented anybody except the patients. Three of the five were past vice-chancellors.

169
That brings us back to the original point: we have to have university people in the appropriate place, not as representatives but there in their own right. It is essential that we get away from the business of having representatives on the boards. That is a recipe for disaster and bad management.
Lord Kilmarnock: The Committee is becoming completely bogged down with the question of representation. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in that I am in favour to a certain extent of the separation of the function of purchaser-provider. Therefore, to that extent I am sympathetic with the Government. But you could not have any purchasing body in any other business in the world which did not actually have expert purchasers. Surely that is the point. Only the nurse and the doctor who are on the management board of the DHA can know what they are buying and whether they are getting value for money.
It seems to me that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and other noble Lords, do not assist the principle of purchasing and providing as separate functions. They do not cut any ice with me, because what we want is expert purchasing, and for that we need expert voices on the boards.
Baroness Hooper: We have had a wide-ranging discussion on the issue of representation. The Government recognise that there is an important professional contribution to be made to decision making. We believe that we provided for that in the most effective way. I do not think that any of the solutions proposed in the amendments now before the Committee add to our proposals; indeed, they might well work against them to the detriment of good management which, at the end of the day, is what will benefit patients most. That is what we all want.
The Government regard it as essential that regional health authorities and district health authorities obtain the best possible medical public health and other professional advice in the way that it—that is, each authority—feels is most effective. Shortly, we shall be debating the specific role of the Director of Public Health. However, we do not believe that the Government should dictate to health authorities how they should obtain that advice. The precise form of advice needed will vary upon the circumstances of the individual authority. Therefore, it would be misleading to try to impose any national blue-print. I should have thought that that would have been welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. For that reason, I am not attrac:ed to the proposals put forward in Amendments Nos. 5A, 19 and 30. I do not believe that a single member at the level of the authority can provide the full range of advice needed by that authority. By seeking to enshrine a single source of advice, the amendment may actually limit its scope.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, did not intend that his amendments should enable representatives to be appointed. However, as I read them, they would have that effect rather than that members were appointed on their own merits in a
170
personal capacity. One of the main advantages of our reforms relating to membership, as I have already said, is the breaking of that representative link. With the best will in the world an individual cannot take a full part in the decision-making of a public body if he feels that he is ultimately there to serve a single interest. On the other hand, appointments made on a personal basis overcome that problem, enabling all members to draw on the full range of their personal experience but not constraining their personal contribution in any way. Similar reasons—
Lord Winstanley: I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive my intervention, but I feel that I should point out that no one has suggested under this amendment that these appointments should not be made on a personal basis. Indeed, they should be made on a personal basis. The issue concerns the description as to what that basis should be.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, I understand. However, I believe that the effect of the process which is suggested by these amendments would be that the individual would feel that he was representing the interests which had appointed him.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If a non-executive member happens to be associated with a firm, is it then assumed that that person will be representative of that firm on the health authority? Surely you cannot have it both ways.
Baroness Hooper: The person concerned will have been appointed for his personal contribution. That is exactly what can happen in this case. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any professional individual being appointed to make that sort of contribution if he is his personal capacity is seen to be the suitable person for that appointment.
Baroness Seear: That is what we have been saying all along. All this talk of representation is completely irrelevant to the main purpose of the amendment. Perhaps we can now return to the main issue of discussion.
Baroness Hooper: I am so glad that the noble Baroness agrees with me.
I must deal with these amendments one by one as they have been spoken to by the Members of the Committee involved. Similar reasons about consultation underlie my doubts on Amendments Nos. 17 and 30. If a person is appointed to membership after a specific consultation exercise, there is a real danger that such a person would see himself as a delegate rather than as an individual appointee. For that reason, I am not attracted to statutory consultation.
However, I can assure Members of the Committee that the Government give careful consideration to all suggestions put forward for membership of regional health authorities, and regions likewise do so for appointments at district level. The process will continue under the changes proposed in the Bill. No doubt the professional bodies will take full advantage of the opportunity to feed in their thoughts on the

171
non-executive membership of their local health authorities. As I have already said, there is nothing to prevent GPs, nurses or those from other professions from being appointed in a personal capacity. I should have expected that fact to be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred to medical managers. I agree with the general emphasis of improving the managerial input of doctors. Indeed, some doctors have moved into general management while others contribute to management in other ways; for example, through the resource management initiative which we are seeing throughout the country.
The National Health Service Management Executive is keen to encourage further management training for clinicians. I believe that the input of doctors into such arrangements may well be reflected in authority membership. In many cases that will be from the Director of Public Health. But clearly health professionals who are themselves managerially qualified in addition must be among the best qualified people to make a very positive personal contribution to these authorities.
I turn now to deal with the membership of the family health services authorities. We have made our intention on professional membership quite clear. Each FHSA will contain membership drawn from the contracting professions—that is, a GP, a dentist and a pharmacist, each serving in a personal capacity. In addition, one of the other members will be a nurse with community experience. We shall be enshrining that provision in the regulations as the Notes on Clauses explain in more detail. I hope that that reassures at least to some extent those noble Lords who have questioned our intentions in this connection.
As with health authorities, we intend that those appointments should be made on a personal basis. Therefore, that will obviously receive approval from all quarters of the Committee. It is not the intention that these professional members should act as spokesmen in a single interest, but that decisions should be informed by a professional presence. The key factor in the appointments will not therefore be who nominated the person concerned but whether he is the best person for the job. That provision must have the approval of all Members of the Committee who have spoken to these amendments. In the light of that explanation, I trust that the mover of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, rises to speak, I should like to ask him a question. At the beginning of the debate, he said that these people would be chosen from the non-executive members. However, would it not be better if they came from the executive members? I say that because otherwise the health authorities would be very professionally orientated. I hope that he will agree to consider that suggestion.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I take note of the point made by the noble Baroness. I should like to express my grateful thanks to the Minister for the careful consideration she has given to Amendment No. 5A.
172
At the outset of the debate I said that it might possibly turn out—and I believe that it has—to be too prescriptive in defining by profession those whom one would wish to see appointed in a personal capacity to health authorities.
However, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness felt similarly not attracted by Amendment No. 17 and those related to it. They simply refer to a consultation process by which the Secretary of State or, in the case of people being appointed to district health authorities, the regional health authority chairman would consult appropriate professional interests before making such appointments. It is disappointing to me that the noble Baroness has not felt able to approve at least in principle the ideas set out there. My personal experience—from membership of my old regional hospital board and then subsequently of an area health authority, of several hospital management committees and district health authorities—is that without question the managerial expertise which has been introduced in increasing substance within the National Health Service has been a remarkably important development.
However, time after time even the most committed and intelligent laymen with long experience in business and many other fields, including—if I may say so in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McColl—vice-chancellors, have repeatedly turned to medical, nursing and other professional advice when specific items were required for consideration and decision. It is absolutely essential that these individuals should be available, not to be consulted and to be advisory, but to be members of health authorities involved in the full discussion and decision-making process.
In the light of the comments made by the noble Baroness, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5A. However, I reserve the right to come back with perhaps alternative amendments at the Report stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that we reconvene in Committee upon the Bill at half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill
7.32 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It is interesting that the Bill has a history going back to 1851 and there is a common thread from that time up to the present. Your Lordships will probably recall that a building was erected in Hyde Park in 1851 on the occasion of the Great Exhibition. Between 1851 and 1854 when the building was removed, it was dubbed the Crystal Palace, I understand by a cartoon in Punch, some time during

173
the nine or 12 months during which the Great Exhibition took place.
During the move to the present site the great building was substantially altered. It was extended by some 30 per cent. So whatever we may talk about today in terms of an original building, we must recall that the Crystal Palace that was opened by Queen Victoria in 1854 and burned down in 1936 was a different building from that erected in Hyde Park in 1851.
The Crystal Palace company ran the building in the park before the first world war. Under the Crystal Palace Act 1914 a body of trustees was set up to acquire the palace and the park and the trustees were required "to hold and manage it as a place of public resort and recreation."
During the first world war the palace was used by the Admiralty as a training depot and in 1919 as a demobilisation centre. After the war the park and the grounds were partly restored. In June 1920 the palace was reopened by King George V and Queen Mary. As I said, in 1936 the palace was burned down although most of the park was untouched. When the second world war came along, again the park and those premises then in situ were used for defence purposes.
The next most important landmark was 1951 when, under the London County Council (Crystal Palace I Act of that year, the park and palace were transferred to the then LCC. Parts of the park were reopened to the public in 1952 and 1953. The National Sports Centre was opened in 1964 by His Royal Highness Prince Philip.
The 1951 Act substantially repealed the 1914 Act although certain sections of the latter Act survived. While the 1951 Act repealed the trust created by the earlier Act, the functions of the LCC were extended to include holding the park "as a place of education and recreation and for the promotion of industry, commerce and art." That theme runs from 1851 to the present day. Your Lordships will recall that in 1965 the Greater London Council succeeded the London County Coucil and thereby became the managing authority. On the abolition of the Greater London Council, the whole of the Crystal Palace and the park were transferred to the London Borough of Bromley by the London Government Reorganisation (Property etc.) Order 1986.
As soon as the palace and the park were transferred to Bromley, the council started work on a draft landscape plan. That was published in 1986. The nature and scale of the proposals were such that in addition to the considerable works that it was envisaged the council would carry out itself, it was realised that it would be necessary to involve commercial organisations.
Alongside the need for funding is the unusual requirement in the restoration of a park that a substantial and certainly a prominent building would be desirable in a manner perhaps to replace the Crystal Palace building that was destroyed in 1936. Consideration was given to the form and possible uses of the proposed building. Apart from the leisure elements, with both the local business community—and there is a considerable business
174
community in the London borough of Bromley area—and the National Sports Centre Authority, it was decided that a hotel was required in the vicinity.
It is interesting and important to note that both the English and the London tourist boards have stressed the need for considerable additional hotel accommodation in outer London. This has also been emphasised in the strategic planning guidance for London issued by the Department of the Environment. So the council invited developers to submit schemes in accordance with a written brief for which planning permission had already been obtained, both from the London borough of Bromley and, in respect of some land in the London borough of Southwark, from that authority as well.
Perhaps I may turn now to the Bill itself The substantive provisions are contained in Clauses 3, 4 and 5. These three clauses entitle the council for purposes,
"in connection with the provision of an hotel, restaurant, shops, licensed premises, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities or other associated uses",
to lease the land within the relevant part of the
park—that is only 13 acres of some 200 acres—for a term not exceeding 125 years and to,
"grant easements, rights, privileges or licences"
for those purposes in respect of land within the park.
The Bill was introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Beckenham, Sir Philip Goodhart. It passed through its various stages in another place but I should remind your Lordships that there was one petition. When the Bill was considered by a committee of another place certain amendments were agreed. Those have been incorporated into the Bill which is before your Lordships today. In addition the council gave certain undertakings which I can describe if that is the wish of your Lordships.
It is important to appreciate that since it acquired control of Crystal Palace park in 1986, the council has carried out considerable improvements. There is an ambitious programme of further renovation work, particularly in connection with the magnificent terraces in the upper part of the park. It is necessary to involve a commercial developer to complete the restoration work. As the park was designed to set off a prominent building, it points to the need for some development on the site of the original palace. As heavy costs are involved and because the proposed facilities are not of a kind which local authorities would normally provide—for example, hotels and cinemas—the powers requested in this Bill are necessary to allow for their provision.
I have referred to the fact that the development of the 13 acres will enable the borough council of Bromley to achieve over a period of time, through the funding that such a development will generate, the restoration of the remaining terraces and the provision of additional gardens, all of which will be of direct benefit to the general public.
I have probably said sufficient by way of background to the Bill and in terms of the relevant clauses of it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for explaining the Bill and the motives of the promoters so clearly, and also for saving me the trouble of providing the history of the matter and making the House, such as it is, listen to that all over again. I shall come straight to the aims of the Bill. Paragraph (4) on page 1 of the Bill states that the council,
"should be empowered to lease land at Crystal Palace and Park to promote the use and enjoyment of the said Crystal Palace and Park by the public".
I stress the words "by the public". There is no hint in those objectives of the real purpose of the Bill which is contained in Clauses 3 and 4, together with the changes which have been made as a result of a petition in another place. That was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Clause 3 would override the provisions of the London County Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1951 to which the noble Lord referred, which charged the London County Council, and therefore Bromley as its successor, to hold the Crystal Palace Park,
"as a place of education and recreation and for the promotion of industry, commerce and art".
However, Clause 3(1) of this Bill overrides that provision and states that the council may,
"for the purpose of or in connection with the provision of an hotel, restaurant, shops, licensed premises, leisure facilities, entertainment facilities or other associated uses … lease … land … grant easements, rights, privileges … in respect of land within the Crystal Palace and Park".
It then designates the "pink land" as the area on which buildings may be constructed.
Mr. Adrian Stungo, the Director of Land and General Services at the London borough of Bromley, stated in a letter to me of 8th March that the,
"purpose of our Bill is to do no more and no less than give us the powers to lease land in the Park for a hotel and leisure centre".
However, the Bill does not specify that the park will be used for those purposes as opposed to a number of others. Therefore, I find the claim slightly disingenuous. In his letter, Mr. Stungo further states that proposals for detailed buildings would be a matter to be dealt with under planning procedures, when all objections would be considered and a decision taken. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the London borough of Bromley intends to permit this development to go ahead and has selected one of four shortlisted entrants and will no doubt give the selected entrant planning permission. It has the right to do that.
The proposal by the A1 Houda Hotel and Tourism Company of Kuwait is for a Holiday Inn hotel and leisure centre. It will contain 150 beds, a health and leisure centre, a cinema, conference rooms, restaurants and a large number of shops. The council's design brief required the building to be "in the spirit" of the original Crystal Palace. However, that is not quite the same as the wording in Clause 4 of the Bill which states:
"The principal building … shall reflect the architectural style of the original Crystal Palace".
There is quite a difference between those two statements.
176
The council expressed a preference,
"for a building which consists of a predominance of metal and transparent material … incorporating the outline form of one of the original transepts".
The transepts were the distinctive arched parts of the original Crystal Palace building. The proposed new building, however, is too small. It is half the length and one-quarter of the volume of the Crystal Palace and because of height restrictions will stand considerably lower than the original palace. The height restrictions arise partly from the transmission needs of the BBC mast, but also from the terms of the Greater London Development Plan.
There are two issues here. The new building is not a replica and bears only a passing resemblance to the original Paxton/Barry design. It will not be as ornate and it is not made of transparent materials as it is intended to be covered in mirror glass. The Royal Fine Art Commission had to ask to be consulted when outline planning permission had already been given, as the council had given itself planning permission. I find that rather amazing. Before I quote what the Royal Fine Art Commission said about this matter, I must say that I find it strange that the Royal Fine Art Commission had to be asked to be consulted when the usual practice is that a council or other body approaches the commission with its designs and asks for the commission's comments. It is difficult for one not to assume that the council was pushing the matter through rather rapidly and that it neither welcomed nor wanted any intervention from the Royal Fine Art Commission.
The commission sent a group of commissioners to see the site. The commission considered that the size and scale of the new building would be much too small for such a prominent site and that it would be out of scale with Paxton's terraces which would form its podium. The site is prominent as it is on the tallest hill in South London.
The Royal Fine Art Commission welcomes, as I do, the restoration of Paxton's terraces—which I thought when I visited the site were absolutely magnificent—and also the proposal to find a new use for E.M. Barry's underpass. The commission considers that the construction of steel and glass, while appropriate enough for an exhibition hall, is wholly unsuitable for multi-storey cellular accommodation which the hotel and leisure centre will clearly contain. In a letter dated 5th December 1988 the chairman of the commission, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, says that the,
"wrong size, scale and expression of the new building will falsify what was there before, and that to do this with such an important and famous building as the Crystal Palace is particularly regrettable".
The Crystal Palace Act 1951 specified that the site should be used, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out, for the
"purposes of art, recreation, leisure, commerce and industry".
The original Crystal Palace was itself a palace of the people. The function of the new building, on the other hand, will be certainly rather more private than public. It will have a public function only to the extent that it serves the need for the National Sports Centre. However, it seems to be geared more

177
to the demands of the business communities of Bromley and Croydon than to the needs of the public.
As the Crystal Palace Foundation, founded in 1979, put it:
"if this is to be the new 'palace of the people' should there not be space created for public meetings, conferences, concerts and so on? For the new proposed complex to become just another hotel does not reflect what the original Crystal Palace stood for".
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quoted the Lor don Tourist Board and the English Tourist Board as expressing a need for more hotel accommodation. I am sure that that is so but it does not mean that a hotel has to be built on that site. There are alternative sites for a hotel in Bromley if that is what is wanted, adjacent to the site.
As we know, the scheme is going ahead only because the GLC was abolished. Bromley designated the land as metropolitan open land in 1985, one year before abolition. That means that at present no building may be erected on it, with certain minor exceptions. The proposed hotel and leisure centre would conflict with that requirement; hence the need for a Bill. It is a great pity that the matter did not go to public inquiry. Many of us would have felt much happier. Instead it has been dealt with very much in-house.
The GLC was the inheritor of the LCC's responsibilities. The Crystal Palace Park was vested in the LCC under the 1951 Act because a place of wide importance needed more than local trust management. The purpose of the 1951 Act in recognising the regional importance of Crystal Palace was overturned by abolition and the results are now plain to see. The council, having acquired the park, gave itself planning permission to build a hotel and leisure centre on the palace site and is now promoting a Bill to make it lawful to do so. We must face the fact that a national site of historic importance and high architectural significance is being turned over to the private sector barely five years after Bromley council designated it as metropolitan open land. If the proposal goes through, the council should be asked to give an undertaking that some of the earnings from the development will be ploughed back into the park itself.
An article by Gavin Stamp in the Independent magazine of 22nd October 1988 makes it clear that Bromley council ignored an application by New Crystal Palace Ltd. for an exhibition and theme park based on the empire experience—a history of the British empire. It is true that that scheme was less well developed than that submitted for a Holiday Inn. On the other hand, it included a number of positive points, including a large theatre for dance, which is badly needed in London. It also intended to exploit the existing and functioning low-level railway station to bring visitors from Victoria or London Bridge. The scheme was not even short-listed and the leader of the council declined to discuss its possibilities with its promoters.
David Prout, the architectural adviser to the Victorian Society, has expressed the following views on behalf of that society:
"We are extremely worried about the cynical exploitation of the dream of rebuilding the Crystal Palace in order to promote
178
the use of the site for the construction of a luxury hotel and shopping centre. We wish to condemn the present scheme and emphasise that the lip-service paid by the developers to the old palace should not prejudice opinion in their favour".
He goes on to say:
"Rather than a great public building, however, the present plans envisage a typical suburban commercial development with luxury hotel, shopping facilities, and leisure centre…. As if in compensation for this, the developers propose to build a 'new' Crystal Palace. The resulting 'conservation modernism', however, is totally unacceptable. The curtain wall structure with a mirror glass skin is pastiche revivalism of the very worst kind. Not only is it a pastiche architecturally, but it is a fraudulent use of the Crystal Palace dream".
As Gavin Stamp points out in the Independent article, recreating any destroyed building involves both philosophical and aesthetic restoration problems. There is not only the question of whether it can be done but also the question of whether it ought to be done and whether it is an exercise in nostalgia or in the creation of pastiche. He argues, however, that the Crystal Palace may be an ideal candidate for recreation. It was a great and popular landmark in Victorian London and was itself re-erected once. The design is well documented and has been copied in a number of public and private buildings. Paxton's design is revered by engineers who see it (perhaps wrongly) as the first modern building. More truthfully, it probably represents one of the great engineering feats of Victorian design. Yet if recreation, for reasons of height or usefulness, cannot be attempted, there is a consensus among concerned organisations that the development ought not to go ahead.
The Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society also objected and has made similar statements that the facilities of the development would not be available to the general public—that is the nub of my argument—and would be contrary to the ethos of the original Crystal Palace and park. The society argues that the Clause 3 enabling power should not be allowed to pass into law unless the Bill is amended to provide a far greater degree of public benefit and to limit the extent and nature of the development of the land to a considerable extent.
Although it can be argued—and has been argued by some of the officials of Bromley council who were kind enough to come and see me here and were extremely helpful in answering questions—that the swimming pool at the Holiday Inn would be open to non-residents, as the pools are at most Holiday Inns, on the whole they are extremely expensive. They are very much more expensive than a public swimming bath.
The lack of public access worries me considerably. I know that the park has not been open to the public for some time. However, the fence is broken. When I visited the park I got in very easily without feeling that I was trespassing because most of the fencing was broken. It is not a valid argument that because the land has not been open to the public for all that time it should not be open in the future. Why was it not open to the public? The park should have been open in the past as it was open land.
I received this information only today, otherwise I should have told the noble Lord about it. The Royal Fine Art Commission has recently received plans for a new scheme. The proposal for a new

179
Crystal Palace exhibition centre—I gather that this has emerged within the last month—by T. P. Bennett is for a single-span, vaulted structure of steel and glass covering the Paxton terraces and therefore below the site of the Crystal Palace. The terraces as well as the site will be excavated to provide additional exhibition rooms, circulation routes, offices, shops and cafes and two tiers of car parking. The site over the car park would be reinstated with grass and trees.
Unfortunately, so far the scheme has no backing, but has been prepared in defiance of Bromley Council's proposal to build a hotel and leisure centre on the site. I believe that the architects feel that, if that scheme becomes known and is more acceptable all round, they will attract backing to it. The commission has congratulated the architects on producing an appropriate, dramatic solution which will also keep the site of the former Crystal Palace open.
The Chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission—the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley—speaking on 2nd April at a press conference said that the commission wished to congratulate the architects who had produced an appropriately dramatic solution which also kept open the site of the former Crystal Palace. He said that the commission greatly preferred that design to the inept proposal of Bromley Council to build a hotel and leisure centre on the site. The commission admired the bold approach, but believed that it should be even bolder and should discard the Victorian trimmings. The Royal Fine Art Commission suggested that, if nothing appropriate was to be built, it would be better to use the site to lay out the ground plan of the Crystal Palace and to put the hotel and leisure centre elsewhere, for example, in the grounds of the present park. Alternatively, the site should be used for a grand, modem building appropriate to its significance. That is the suggestion of Gavin Stamp.
I have taken time over this matter because it is an important one affecting Bromley Council which believes that it is doing the best it can for the area. I and other people believe that that is not the right solution and that it should think again. I reserve the right to table an instruction to the Committee, depending on the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It might be difficult for him to reply immediately, so perhaps he can let me have a considered reply in the near future so that I can decide what I shall do.
8.4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay for allowing me to chip in at this time just for a few minutes, particularly in view of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and some of the points of considerable interest which she raised.
There are no petitions against the Bill. There will therefore be no opportunity for a Select Committee to hear evidence from the promoters and from those who, like the noble Baroness, have objections to the
180
Bill. In my view, that is the normal and sensible procedure when a Private Bill is opposed. However, if given a Second Reading this evening, the Bill will go to an Unopposed Bill Committee of which I have the privilege to be the Chairman.
My only reason for saying anything is that I have listened with great care to all that has been said this evening and I shall also listen to what is said after I sit down. The committee will give due regard to the points made. However, I should emphasise that questions of design are quite outside the scope of anything that could be done by the Unopposed Bill Committee. These are matters for the planning authority. That is all that I wish to say. I have listened carefully and I shall give due regard to what has been said where we can be of some use.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it might be helpful if I state briefly the Government's view of the Bill.
It is traditional on Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance and this Bill is no exception to that rule. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the London Borough of Bromley. No department has any points outstanding on the Bill.
It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. As the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, there are no petitions against the Bill in your Lordships' House. I hope that in the usual way the Bill will be allowed to proceed to the Unopposed Bill Committee for its consideration.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for raising matters which I readily concede are of great importance. Before I respond to some of the points, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for his guidance about the way in which the Bill will develop, provided that noble Lords give it a Second Reading tonight about which I am quite optimistic.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for putting the Government's point of view; namely, that there is no objection in principle and that no Department of State has any matters outstanding. However, he reminded us that it is for the promoters, through myself, to persuade Parliament that this is a right and proper Bill. I sought to do that in my opening remarks. I shall so continue in responding to many of the points raised by the noble Baroness. I thank her in advance for her invitation to communicate with her later if I omit some of the points. I shall consider carefully what she has said when Hansard is printed and shall take up any points that I omit now.
The noble Baroness started by referring to Clause 4 of the Bill which she quoted. I shall not quote it other than to remind her that it states that it is expedient that the council should do certain things
"to promote the use and enjoyment of the said Crystal Palace and Park by the public".

181
That is the common strand to which I referred in my opening remarks. That is precisely what the Bill seeks to do by the leasing of some 13 acres out of 200 acres for development, part of which will be a commercial development, including an hotel, shops, boutiques, bars, a leisure centre, an exhibition centre, a conference centre and so on, all of which implements some 40-odd years on that which the 1951 legislation provided. The 1951 Act provided that the park was to be used
"as a place for education and recreation and for the promotion of industry, commerce and arts".
That is precisely what is proposed in the Bill.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me where education facilities come into that? My notes have been whisked away to Hansard so I cannot check. The noble Lord quoted the 1951 Act correctly, but I cannot see any educational facilities in the plans that have been put forward by the council
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, an exhibition and conference centre can provide for seminars, lectures and artistic displays, whether they be of painted works, poetry readings or anything else. I should have thought that would come into an educational context in today's usage.
I do not believe that Clause 3, to which the noble Baroness referred, overrides the 1951 Act. Indeed, in the original Bill before the other place, amended at the request of the committee in response to the petitioners at the time that the Bill was before that House, the amendment to Clause 3(1) was inserted at the request of the Commons Committee during their proceedings to clarify the limitations which should be imposed on the power in Clause 3(1). Clauses 3(2) and 3(3) were offered to the committee by the Borough Council in order to meet the criticism of the petitioners. They confirm in statutory form the intentions of the council.
There is no question of the public being deprived of access to the facilities under the council's current projections and the developer's ideas for the shops and so on. I cannot involve myself in matters over which I have no control, such as planning. Whether the original plan was called in for inquiry is not within my scope. Suffice it to say that the proper routes were followed in the outline planning permission. The detail of the developer's plan is still subject 10 that planning authority.
As for the question of volume, I do not think that one can reasonably expect a building, however funded, to replicate a building built in 1851 and then some three or four years later have it extended by 30 per cent., particularly in view of the changes that have occurred, one of which relates to the broadcasting transmitting station and the other to the London development plan on height, to which the noble Baroness referred.
The noble Baroness referred to the importance of spirit and style. This has been embraced because it was sti]5ulated in the outline planning consent granted in 1987 that the development should contain a predominance of glass and metal and reflect such
182
spirit. Again, the Bill was amended to provide that the principal buildings to be constructed in any development should reflect the architectural style of the original Crystal Palace.
I have seen some of the drawings. I am not an architect; nor am I an artist. However I recognised a great archway with what I would call a walkway through it, reflecting that style in some part anyway.
I knew of the concern of the Royal Fine Art Commission. Perhaps on reflection the borough council might have wished that it had extended an invitation at an earlier stage. Be that as it may, the Royal Fine Art Commission has made its comments and dealt with the Bennett proposal, mentioned by the noble Baroness. As I understand it the Bennett scheme was a speculative scheme. Certainly it does not comply with either the Bill or the undertakings that were given in another place during the committee stage.
I emphasise that although the noble Baroness declares that the park should be open and should have been opened a long time ago, it is unsafe and requires a considerable amount of money to be spent on restoration work. As the noble Baroness will agree, I do not normally make party political points. To me it is very sad that neither the LCC nor the GLC expended any real amounts of money to ensure that the park was open to the public. Only parts of it were opened in 1952 and 1953. It is on record that a greater part of the park has been restored and developed since 1986—since its management fell to the Bromley borough council. I am satisfied and Members of Parliament for that area—Beckenham, Croydon North-East, Norwood and Dulwich—who include members of all parties, have raised no major objections. Indeed, some have commended the reopening of various parts of the park.
Certainly I am satisfied that should the Bill be granted a Second Reading this evening and should Parliament approve it, much of the moneys that will accrue from the development that the borough council envisages will be devoted to further improvements of the park, which I have been across quite recently, and to restore it to much of its former glory for the greater enjoyment not only of the people of the borough but others such as tourists from all over the world and indeed our own country. When there is greater usage of the park for recreational and educational purposes, I think the purposes for which the Bill has been promoted will have been well satisfied.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will answer a question. What he said about the amounts of money being spent on the park was very heartening. Was he speaking on his own behalf and with hopefulness or was he speaking on behalf of Bromley borough council.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my honourable friend the Member for Beckenham who promoted the Bill in the other place has talked with me, as have officials of Bromley borough council. They envisage that some £30 million will be spent if Parliament passes the Bill and the various planning requirements are met. That kind of money will be

183
spent, the bulk of it within three or four years of the enactment and subsequently.
We are talking about an enormous amount of money which I do not believe, with the best will in the world, any local authority could undertake to expend without the assistance of commercial activities. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. I hope that I have answered all the other major points raised by the noble Baroness. As I said, I shall certainly read our exchange and if I have missed anything, I shall write to her. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.19 to 8.30 p.m.]

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("of whom not less than one quarter shall be persons nominated by local authorities in the area concerned.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I wish to comment also on Amendment No. 13. I hope that the Committee will permit me—it may speed up some of the later amendments—if for the record I make a few comments on where we have now reached, putting the amendment into context.
It is not my view that the health service will be necessarily improved by the new style business executive type of authority. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, implied that I was not totally converted; I am not. I have read all the reports of the debates in another place. Every proposal that was made from Members other than government supporters was rejected. One Conservative amendment was accepted.
Lord Henley: I do not think that any amendment was accepted. I believe that my noble friend said that she would take it back and consider it.
Lord Ennals: The amendment came back on Report stage. I cannot quote from the record at the moment; I shall inform the noble Lord. I believe that I am right. If not, I shall apologise.
On looking back, what happened when general managers were appointed? New people were appointed from outside the National Health Service on the basis of the recommendation of the first Griffiths Report. Most of those who applied from within the service did not obtain the posts, and those who were appointed were from business, retired from the armed forces and from other situations.
184
My impression is that most of the appointments did not last. Either the people were not up to the job, they did not find the job conducive because they did not understand the National Health Service, or they decided that they would go to some other field. There was a very high departure rate. I do not expect the Minister to answer now; but I should be very interested to know how many of those who were first appointed under the new structure of general managers still remain in post today and what happened when others left. In most cases administrators who had worked for some years within the National Health Service were appointed.
The Government now have the concept that everything must be run on business lines; that one does not need to have people who understand anything about the health service; that one needs to have people with executive, business and managerial experiences. Their concept is, "Out with the people who had been elected to local authorities and served on health authorities. Out with people who had worked with voluntary organisations." Such people had experience within various specialist bodies—welfare of patients, specialist knowledge of the disabled, and what-have-you. And in come who? At some stage today perhaps the Minister will tell us which people she expects to come on to these new slimline, streamlined health authorities. Who are these new people to be? Are they to be leaders of industry and commerce? I do not believe so. They would not come; they are too busy. One might obtain second or third rate people or those with a specific business interest for whom the health service might provide some business benefits.
Are the Government satisfied that these new authorities will be more efficient than present authorities? I must assume that the Minister is quite dissatisfied with the present performance of regional and district health authorities. I agree if she were saying that they could be improved; that they are too big. There is a range of issues with which I could agree. But what makes her believe that this business plan will be better? The performance of business these days leaves much to be desired, perhaps even more than the performance of health authorities. There seems to be a record level of bankruptcies. Standards in the City are not all that satisfactory. There do not seem to have been pilot studies on the new style health authorities let alone the internal market, NHS trusts, GP budget holding, and so on.
I am not convinced that the proposals in Schedule 1 are necessarily in the best interests of the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister may at some stage be able to say something to convince me. I am certainly open to being convinced if evidence is given. My impresssion is that it is a shot in the dark. On Second Reading I prophesied that there would be troubles and chaos. What makes the Minister so confident that I am wrong?
I refer specifically to the amendment before us. I understand the laughter from noble Lords—I am laughing myself. To get this off" my chest may make it a little easier for me to move some of the later amendments.
The Government's decision to remove all local authority members from membership of health

185
authorities is in my view a very retrograde step. It can be argued that the performance of some local authority members has not been too high, and that those who are now appointed are not necessarily the best members of the authorities. There are many reasons why one can understand that that may be the position. There may be too many of them. Those are matters that we can consider.
However, I am deeply concerned at the thought that at one fell swoop we create bodies with no guarantee that anyone on these new bodies will have any experience of that part of the NHS and community care which is dealt with by the Bill. It is extremely important that health and community care are considered together. Personal social services are the foundation of care in the community. There is a very close link between care in the community and standards of health. We are talking about a continuum of care of people who become ill. They may not go into hospital. They may be under the care of their GPs. They may be under the responsibility of the social service department. They go into hospital; and they come out. It is a movement back and forth. I find it deeply disturbing that we have no assurance that there will be someone who is closely in touch with the performance of social service authorities.
It may have been an error of my predecessor, Mrs. Castle, in increasing the number of local authority representatives. However, she was well aware, as I am, that there was little accountability within the National Health Service. She wished to do something about it. The Government are ensuring that there is no accountability within the new structure that they propose. I introduced joint planning and joint funding;. That made a contribution but I expect that eventually it will disappear. There is little basis for that if one takes away from health authorities people who have had experience with local authorities, particularly in social service departments. It is disturbing that the situation is real.
It is strange that, while the Government have set as one of their aims the improved responsiveness of the service to consumers, they should at the same time seek to remove elements of local accountability from health authorities. That curious contradiction did not escape the attention of the Social Services Select Committee. In its eighth report (1988–89) it stated:
"If district health authorities are to be able to fulfil their public health role in identifying local needs and planning services accordingly, as well as responding to the needs and wishes of their resident imputation, some form of local representation must be retained".
We have already argued about representation and I am not repeating that. I am arguing the case for drawing on people's experience and in this case those in local authorities. A later amendment relates to district health authorities.
The Royal College of Nursing endorsed that view. It stated:
"The college believes that it is essential that a public health service displays a high level of public accountability by all those responsible for taking key decisions. To this end the RCN would favour stronger consumer representation".
We deal with different aspects of consumer representation; for example, people with local
186
authority responsibility. One way of achieving that representation would be to increase rather than remove the proportion of local authority members drawn from people with experience of local government.
Finally, I wish to emphasise the point made about local accountability. The Government have used the argument to justify the community charge. However, it appears to be cut down to size if we seek to have no degree of accountability within the National Health Service. I hope that the Government will think again and recognise that there is an important role to be played in regional health authorities by people with local authority experience. It is disturbing to note that the Government appear to be moving in exactly the opposite direction. I hope that the Minister will explain the basis of government thinking. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: We must be thankful for small mercies and for the fact that "twixt the syrup and the cup" one-half has become one-quarter. I only hope that as a result of our brief debate the other quarter will be removed.
A complaint that I heard particularly from clinicians but also from other professional people involved in the management of the health service was that in too many cases local authority participation was completely irrelevant. One has heard stories of local authority representatives arriving at regional or district health authority meetings obviously not having opened the envelopes containing their papers.
Perhaps I made a mistake in reversing the Castle reform by having half the number of health authority members on local authorities. Perhaps I should have had the courage to say that there was no role for them. Of course we can have joint funding. We built on that and I have always given credit to the right honourable gentleman for the initiatives that he and his predecessor took in that regard. Inevitably that hits a ceiling because health authorities cannot continue to pay their share unless other projects disappear at the far end. Nevertheless, considerable efforts have been made. However, the right honourable gentleman—I beg his pardon, I mean the noble Lord—
Lord Ennals: Both!
Lord Jenkin of Roding: That is right. The second part of the Bill dealing with community care adopts a different approach from what may be called "Griffiths 2". That proposes that a large part of the care in the community should be returned to local authorities with specific earmarked funding. In a sense, that is the solution for which we have been groping for a number of years and which, after some hesitation, has been adopted by the Government. Therefore, the main burden of the noble Lord's argument falls to the ground. If we are to have smaller professional managerial bodies running the health service it would be a nonsense to have statutory representatives. And what would they be but representatives of local authorities?

187
I hope that the Government will stick firmly by their policy and that we shall have seen the last of the local authority representatives appointed as such. It may be that in many areas competent local people with a considerable contribution to make will be councillors. That would be a happy coincidence and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. However, it would be a grave mistake to retain the statutory representation of local authorities on health authorities.
I wish to take up a further point made by the noble Lord and I believe that he will continue to make it throughout our discussions on the Bill. We should be aware that he will use the language of the City; that is "business management" and "profitability". Such metaphors will be used—
Lord Ennals: Buzzwords.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Health authorities should have had budgets for a long time but in that sense this is not a commercial exercise. It is not simply a question of subjecting decisions to the test solely of value for money or of profit. Anyone who has read the White Paper will recognise that the quality of care will be equally important in the agreements which the purchasers will make with the providers. They will want to ensure that effective quality will be provided. Why else does the White Paper contain so much about medical and clinical audit? One must also ask the question: why are some doctors so terrified that some of their practices will now be subject to external scrutiny? It is so that we shall not have the situation of certain categories of specialists in some areas being able to carry out eight to 10 operations per week while others carry out only one or two. One will see quality at the heart of the proposals. I hope that as the noble Lord develops his arguments against the Bill he will not try to exaggerate and say that it simply sets up a market which will be determined on narrow commercial monetary grounds. No one reading the White Paper could conceivably argue that point.
In our first debate today the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that there is a great deal of common ground on many aspects of the Bill. I hope that that will be so. As the arguments have unfolded some of the worst fears have been shown to be groundless. As the arguments have developed in another place and in the country as a whole some of the professional anxieties have been patiently and consistently answered. There are some issues about which we can argue perfectly properly, but to base the argument on the foundation that this is an entirely new commercial venture where profit, balance sheets and so forth will be the only criteria of success is to mislead the public and waste the discussion time. As regards local authorities the Bill has the right answer; good councillors should be appointed where appropriate but there should be no statutory representation.
Lord Kilmarnock: Did I hear the golden words "specific earmarked funding" fall from the noble
188
Lord's lips in relation to that part of the Bill dealing with community care? Is that his understanding of the Government's intention? If that is so, is that the Government's intention?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: It may be that I used the word "earmarked" meaning that the money is used separately. That may have been an exaggeration. I was referring to the specific additional funding to fund an additional burden which is being placed on local authorities. That is as I understand the matter and my noble friend on the Front Bench will correct me if I am wrong. That funding will provide a substantial part of any additional expenditure incurred by local authorities for community care.
Lord Kilmarnock: I accept that, although I think the noble Lord went rather too far when he used the word "earmarked".
Lord Dean of Beswick: I did not intend to speak on this amendment. However, as a former councillor who was on the health authority representing the people of Manchester I take the opposite view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I became the last deputy chairman of Manchester executive council of health. As regards accountability to the customer, I do not believe that the health service has progressed one iota. In fact, it has gone in reverse by virtue of what the noble Lord who has just spoken has done.
In my time as deputy chairman of Manchester executive council of health I was chairman of certain service committees to which the people had ready access. That was to try to discipline general practitioners who were not behaving too well; and, by God, they need some controlling in the ways in which they operate.
I was also chairman of service committees dealing with cases of complaint against the dental and pharmaceutical professions. I believe it would be far better if we reverted to that situation. I may be told that the community councils are there as the watchdogs of the customer. However, they are nothing but talking shops. They carry no weight and are ignored in most instances.
I return to the former Secretary of State for Health. I heard him speak earlier and he made great play of appointing Sidney Hamburger as chairman of Manchester regional health authority. He made great play of indicating his neutrality by saying that he was opposed all along the line by local Conservative MPs and that he was further opposed when he suggested reappointing Mr. Hamburger. I do not wish to be brought into that particular debate but the people in Manchester who had the real interests of the health service at heart did not go along with what Mr. Hamburger was doing. In fact, he was carrying out without argument the policy of the noble Lord opposite and his successor.
Before I left the other place in 1983 I tabled a series of Questions to the noble Lord's successor, who has now stepped down from high office, as regards the removal of Labour councillors from certain positions and in almost every case their replacement by Conservative nominees. Of course,

189
he was totally unbiased. Since I came to your Lordships' House a short time ago I have tried to identify who were those people placed in positions of importance as chairmen of local health authorities. I have never believed that a leader of a local authority should also be the chairman of the health authority. To me that would be absolute nonsense because the two cannot be reconciled. There could be areas of conflict.
Perhaps I may give an outstanding example of that. A few years ago there was a tragedy in Wakefield. I believe that 17 or 19 people in an old people's home died of salmonella or some other form of food poisoning or related complaint. What emerged from that indicated that I was not as wrong as Government Ministers thought. At the time the leader of Wakefield health authority was also the leader of the local authority. Strangely enough—and I am not attacking local Conservative politicians—the leader of the other district authority in the area, the Pontefract authority, was the deputy leader of Wakefield Metropolitan Council. When a distinguished QC was called upon to report on what had taken place and how those people had come to die there was, without any question, implied criticism of the chairman of Yorkshire Regional Health Council, who was a Conservative supporter and a former chairman of a constituency in Yorkshire, and the chairman of Wakefield health authority, who, as I said, was also chairman of Wakefield City Council and a member, I am sad to say, of my party.
That proved my argument. However, what did the Minister do? Members of the Committee can guess who were the only three people to be reappointed; namely, the three people who were criticised in the inquiry called for by the Minister into what had taken place. The other chairman from West Yorkshire, from Kirklees and Bradford who had good records were not reappointed. However, the people at whom the criticism had been directed for failing in their duties were reappointed.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has had close contact with and experience of local authorities. I am not saying that everything is right with local authorities. I was a critic of the Seebohm Report and the proposed huge social security departments. Rights of the local people who wished to complain about what was taking place were taken away from them. The reorganisation took away some of the responsibilities from local author: ties and placed them with unelected people. That was a disaster of the first magnitude.
We have now turned full circle. The Government are now saying that care of the elderly should be given back to local authorities. They are saying that it is not remedial medicine but concerns dealing with people who are at the end of their lifespan. That will happen increasingly. However, that was the case before with welfare homes.
As a young councillor in Manchester I recall the opening of the first welfare home. That was tremendously well received. Those homes were built in order to look after people who could, for the most
190
part, care for themselves. What happened within a few years? They became dumping grounds for geriatrics. The National Health Service unloaded them into those homes. When I visited those homes as a Member of Parliament I was horrified because if those people were looked after properly that needed to be done on a nursing ratio of one to one. They became homes for people who did not know what day it was. That is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has just tried to defend.
I am not for one moment saying that all local authority councils, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal, do their job well. There are those which fail in that. However, to assume that the Minister has picked a good man for the team and can never be wrong is absolute nonsense.
Before I sit down I will give an example of something which took place a few months ago. I was sitting in the Pugin Room having a drink and there were some people there from the South West, not of my party. Among them sat a Member of Parliament who is a present Secretary of State in another department. As they broke up I happened to say to one of the Conservative Members of Parliament, "I think I know one of the gentlemen with you from my old local government days". He said, "No, I do not think he has ever been in local government. He is the chairman or secretary of our community health council". I said, "What is he doing here?" He said, "We have been objecting to the performance of our district council chairman"—a well-known figure in that particular area of the South West, a Conservative lapsed councillor. They solved the problem; they accepted the strictures of the people of the area that that Tory was doing a bad job. But a month later they made him the regional chairman. Their own Members of Parliament had asked to get rid of him and they appointed him regional chairman. One cannot get away with that and say, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, politely, that it is wrong to involve local councillors.
I used to have a weekly surgery in a densely-populated area. If something went wrong involving general practitioners—not with the hospital service, which we never touched—that was the best and only way of keeping any form of control. One can forget the general practitioners' committees. I have just had an experience with them in Manchester. One morning I was informed that my two doctors had decided to retire and that if I wanted I could go a mile up the road and perhaps register there. That affected nearly 7,000 patients in the area where I lived. It happened because of appointments by Ministers of those they think are marvellous men. They may well be. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that he tried to be unbiased. I recognise that from some of the people whom he appointed. However, if he will look through the present list of regional chairmen of health authorities and district authorities he will find a totally unacceptable number of Conservative nodding donkeys. If that is his idea of how to democratise or make the National Health Service more accountable without hindering its progress, he is talking absolute rubbish and will have to do better next time.
9 p.m.
Lord Auckland: I believe that there needs to be a distinction in this amendment between urban authorities and rural authorities. In a large conurbation, although I have never served on a local authority, I should have thought that it is much harder to appoint suitable people with the time to serve on those authorities than it is in rural communities where local authorities and the local hospitals and the cottage hospitals may be much closer. I should be happier if the amendment was a little more flexible. I believe half is too large a figure; but, having said that, I believe every encouragement should be given for nominees from local authorities to become involved on these committees, particularly in rural areas. There is need for more flexibility so far as the amendment is concerned.
Lord Henley: I had not intended to digress on the subject of the role of regional health authorities. My noble friend referred to that at Second Reading and it is covered in the White Paper. Perhaps I can start by dealing with one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He asked what type of people will be the new non-executive members of the regional health authorities. Will they be businessmen? The Bill says nothing whatever about who the non-executive members will be. Some will undoubtedly be drawn from the business world, but others will be drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds. In general they will all have links with the local community through either residence or work and will therefore be sensitive to its needs. I can only emphasise that suggestions for membership will be welcomed from all quarters. They will no doubt include people who, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin suggested, will be local councillors.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that he was not arguing the case for local authority representation. So far as I could make out he seemed to be doing just that. Councillors are elected to run their authorities and are accountable to their electors for the job that they do. They are not elected to run the National Health Service. The National Health Service is a national and not a local authority service. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is fully responsible to Parliament for the National Health Service and he carries out his statutory duties through the health authorities. They are responsible to him and he accounts to Parliament.
The presence of local authority nominees undermines that line of accountability. The risk is that councillor-members will purport to represent their electors or their local authorities rather than carrying out their proper management role, which is to run the local health service in the light of local needs and circumstances and with the resources, policies and priorities established by the government of the day. That is a recipe for conflict and confusion and too often gives rise to political posturing which is not in the interests of the smooth running of the service.
The two amendments of the noble Lord concern regional health authorities. As the noble Lord knows, these are strategic bodies accountable directly to
192
the Secretary of State. They are responsible for the oversight of their districts, for the allocation of resources and for the planning, monitoring and review of performance. It would be entirely inappropriate for these bodies to be dominated by local authority representatives for the reasons I explained.
I certainly share the view on the importance attached to collaboration between health and local authorities. However, it is entirely erroneous to maintain that that can be achieved through cross-membership. The important thing is active collaboration on the ground, based on a good working relationship.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to ask how he will deal with the situation if there is a serious concern in an area about the performance of the health authority, be it district or regional, and no one, including the Secretary of State, is concerned? I made out a case concerning what was done in Yorkshire by a former Secretary of State for Health. There was an almost total lack of confidence in what had taken place. In such a situation is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, shall be deemed to be totally infallible and will do what is right? Does the Minister not understand that where things are going radically wrong the only safety valve is those people who face the ballot box—the local authority representatives?
It is no use the Minister saying that the Government have decided that it is a national service and that local authorities are there only to provide local services. Over the past 10 years the Government have removed from local councillors almost any vestige of the right to govern local authority areas, and have given increased powers in education, housing and so on to the Secretary of State to do what he wants. The Minister will have to do a little better than that.
Lord Henley: As I said, the regional health authorities are strategic bodies accountable directly to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is directly accountable to Parliament. Another place is filled with elected representatives from local areas. That gives the noble Lord all the accountability he asks for.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister is missing the point. I know that Members of Parliament are available but they are not available at the same level, and because of other committments they do not have the same personal contacts as people who live and operate in the local area. The noble Lord will have to do a little better than that.
Lord Henley: A great many elected Members of Parliament live in their areas. I am sure that all good local Members of Parliament—I am sure the noble Lord was one when he was in another place—hold surgeries. They see local councillors. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and in another place there are elected Members. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will accept that the amendments are not consistent with our

193
efforts to improve the management of the NHS for the benefit of patients and will not wish to press them.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I found very unsatisfactory. I am not trying to suggest that local authorities should have powers to appoint councillors to health authorities. I am suggesting that among those who should be brought into membership of those health authorities, a significant number—I say up to a quarter—should have local authority experience.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may repeat one point. Suggestions will be welcomed from all quarters. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, some local councillors might in time be appointed. But we do not accept the argument that at least a quarter should be appointed from the local authorities.
Lord Ennals: I know that I shall hear this argument on every amendment that I move this evening. The Minister will not say any more than he and his Secretary of State have said. He is keeping his cards close to him. Clearly he has decided what should be the size of both the regional and district health authorities. He will not move from that and so I shall hear that answer again and again.
I want to try to persuade the Government that the new authorities are more likely to do their job if they have 01 them people with a full understanding of the health service—I include professionals, a point which we debated on the previous amendment—and a full knowledge of the community for which the health service provides a service. In this amendment I want to try to persuade the noble Lord that there should be people not appointed by local authorities but with local authority experience, people who, as my noble friend Lord Dean said, have had to face election at the ballot box.
I have always felt that we ought to try to find ways in which our health service can be more responsive to the known views of the public, and in particular the public in the region or in the district. The Government are going in the opposite direction. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, suggested that somehow or other professionals working in the health service were being quietly persuaded of the wisdom of the Government's proposals. I do not know whether he has read the statement made by 25 professional organisations within the National Health Service, organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the professions complementary to medicine. There is no sign that they have accepted the Government's proposals.
The noble Lord also said that there is growing public support for the proposals. I have before me the last five recorded figures of Gallup on public attitudes to National Health Service reform. In June last year 15 per cent. approved and 71 per cent. disapproved. By the time of the fifth survey in March, 11 per cent. approved, 77 per cent. disapproved and 12 per cent. did not know. All the signs are that the public is moving away from the proposals and is not in favour of them. It is doing so partly because the Government are being so insensitive.
194
I want to do some prescribing. I want to ensure that in some ways various groups do not have their representatives but people who are drawn from that body of experience. As regards this amendment, it is the body of experience of the people who work in local authorities and especially of those believing that their skills will be helpful in the whole field of community care and the relationship that will necessarily exist and which must develop between health authorities and elected local authorities. I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("which shall include at least one person representative of such community organisations within the Region in question as seems appropriate to him;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 21, 32, 40 and 50. They deal with the question of community representation. The words "community representation" are not the best ones. Representation refers to someone who is drawn from that body of experience who understands the views of the community organisations. I shall never argue that there should be any organisation that has the right to appoint anyone to any type of health authority.
When the Government launched their review of the NHS in 1988, which eventually gave rise to the White Paper and then to the Bill, they made a good deal of play about being responsive to the needs of the consumer. In her foreword to the White Paper the Prime Minister said simply:
"We aim to extend patient choice".
I want to ensure that that is done and that consumer choice is extended. That can best be achieved if there are, among those who serve on health authorities, those who have deep contacts with people in the local community. Given the general consensus that local communities need to be given a greater role within the NHS and not a lesser one, as seems to be suggested, it is all the more remarkable that there is not one practical proposal within the Bill which would facilitate this extension of consumer choice. Most significantly, there is no guarantee that local communities will have any say in the working of their health service at the planning level.
This amendment and those associated with it attempt to rectify that situation. In the new-look health service it is intended that authorities should act as purchasers for their local communities, having first assessed local needs. No two local communities have identical needs: each will have a series of unique and complex requirements. For example, on certain parts of the south coast it may be that health authorities will have to gear their services particularly to the needs of the elderly. In metropolitan areas it may be that the needs of ethnic communities are a special consideration. Services in new towns may have to reflect the demands of a

195
larger child population than usual. What better way to assess such needs effectively than by securing input from relevant community groups which have direct experience of the elderly, ethnic minorities or children?
Therefore, it is essential that we should cement the links between health care and community care. I argued that point concerning the previous group of amendments. I argue it now in terms of helping to ensure that it is recognised that people who are particularly associated with voluntary organisations, because of their experience with the elderly, the mentally ill or the mentally handicapped, can have a valuable role and input into the membership of the health authority.
The bridge between the community and the health care system can be built more effectively by fully informing the voluntary sector; providing alternative forms of health care; changing public conceptions about health; acting as advocates for individuals and in developing the promotion of services. The health authorities will operate more effectively if part of their experience is drawn from those who are involved with community activities and who can bring that wisdom to ensure that the new health authorities fulfil their role. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: If no other noble Lord wishes to comment, perhaps I may respond by saying that the move away from representative appointments does not mean that health authorities and FHSAs will not have their finger on the pulse of their local communities—far from it. Non-executive members will usually have some connection with the local community, either through residence or employment or because they are active in local voluntary or community organisations. So we believe that they will be very sensitive to the local community needs. Indeed, as we have already established, they could include a local councillor appointed on an individual, personal basis.
Clearly, appointing bodies will wish to receive suggestions from as wide a variety of sources as possible, to find the best possible people. Precisely how that is achieved will depend on local circumstances and local needs. For example, the case of ethnic minorities or special inner city interests will be catered for in those areas where they are of importance. That is why we do not wish to be prescriptive about how it is done from the centre. Nor would we wish to limit the choice locally by giving any one organisation or group of organisations primacy, as is suggested by these amendments. I must reiterate that the key objective will be to appoint the best person for the job.
Community health councils provide and will continue to provide a valuable channel for the views of the health service consumer. Health authorities' meetings will continue to be open to the public so that people from the community will be able to attend and follow the proceedings. In addition, we are funding various initiatives and working with district health authorities in order to help them develop ways of ascertaining consumers' views.
196
For example, in England in 1990-91 £7-5 million has been allocated to regions and special health authorities for new programmes of local projects to enhance quality. Key themes for the projects will be: improving the environment of patients, assessing the quality of services, delivering a more personal service, improving communications, patient information, and so on. Also, £2·5 million is to be spent on an extended programme of demonstration projects for all, with a strong bias towards the consumer. In addition, among other initiatives the department is funding a project at the King's Fund to give advice and information tailored to health authorities' individual needs on consumer health issues.
Our reforms in the White Paper promoting public health to which the noble Lord referred have already placed great emphasis on responsiveness to local needs and views. As part of this process we have significantly strengthened local management by introducing high calibre general managers and by strengthening senior management, particularly in the areas of planning and service development. FPCs are already developing detailed profiles of local health indicators as a basis for service development planning. In addition, last autumn we issued guidance on how to assess and take into account local views and opinions on the services provided. The results of these initiatives will be to make local services more responsive to local needs than they have ever been in the past.
The Government are concerned about meeting the needs of the local consumer. I think that must be beyond doubt. Indeed, we firmly believe that the changes proposed in the Bill will make health authorities and family health services authorities more responsive to the needs of the local community and thus be for the benefit of the patients. I therefore advise the Committee to reject the amendments.
Lord Ennals: I am not surprised at the reply given by the Minister but I am not happy with it. I appreciate a number of the things that she has said, one of which was that there might even be a local councillor. I suppose there might even be someone associated with voluntary organisations. There might be all sorts of people, but it all rests with the Secretary of State and those whom he appoints.
I feel it is very unsatisfactory that the Government are not prepared to make much greater commitments as to the nature, the structure and membership of the health authorities. However, I realise that that is what the Minister is required to say and she did so most beautifully. I shall not press the matter to a Division. I shall, as always, read her speech with great care and I may well return to the broad issue of the membership of health authorities at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("to include at least one registered medical practitioner.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 33. I must confess that I felt most depressed while listening to the tenure of the debate. I believe that the medical profession should be more involved in management. It is especially important now, at a time when the Bill proposes that health authorities take on an extended role, and when they will have additional powers, that the medical voice should be adequately heard.
As I said, I feel most depressed about the matter because I gained the impression that members of the health authorities would be selected on a basis which will exclude clinicians. I cannot really believe that that is what is proposed. I cannot imagine anyone setting up an architectural firm without having architects on the board. I do not believe that an accountancy firm could be set up without having accountants on the board. Moreover, you could not open an art gallery without having artists involved in the decision-making. A firm of engineers with no engineers on its board is bound to be inefficient. Therefore, I cannot understand the attitude about having medical practitioners involved in the decision-making in the health authorities. I wait to hear what the Minister will say because I find the whole approach quite absurd.
Decisions need to be taken with the benefit of the informed and practical medical advice of professiona1s who care for patients on a day-to-day basis. That is what is needed. There are in fact examples of this because at present the best run authorities are those which have doctors acting as their chairmen. I hope that on this occasion we shall get a change from the answers which we have received in respect of other amendments. As I said, I cannot really believe that this is what the Government mean to do.
The Minister spoke about ethnic minority representation. I am sorry, she did not in fact use the word "representation" in regard to ethnic minorities. There are plenty of ethnic minority doctors. I hope that when the Government consult they will consult not only the BMA, but also the Overseas Doctors' Association and the Afro-Caribbean Medical Society.
The doctors concerned do not necessarily need to be elected by any group; but it is important that there should be practising clinicians on the health authorities whose views, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, would be weighed in the balance and who would play an active part in decision-making. they would sometimes be able to say to the authority, "This can't work; it is rubbish. Please try some other tack".
In most businesses there are people who are experts in the business. I am not just referring to the people who are employed because they would give professional advice. The board has to make decisions and therefore it should also have people with expert knowledge. That is what I am saying when I ask that there should be a medical practitioner on the authorities. As I said on Second Reading, where family health services authorities are concerned there should be more than one medical practitioner.
198
There should be two who can give expert views on both types of practice. There will be some doctors with their own budgets and others who do not have their own budgets. There should be people with both kinds of experience on the authority.
I plead with the Government to stop taking the attitude that there cannot be experts from the medical profession on the boards; otherwise it will be a matter of representatives and we do not want representation. Rubbish! There must be experts, people who know what they are talking about, involved in the issues. Therefore we need registered medical practitioners on all the authorities.
If in addition one wants to make sure that they are of one's own political persuasion, so be it. However, we must make sure that we recognise—I shall put it another way. I am sure that the Government will not appoint people without requiring them to have skills. Medical knowledge and medical experience are skills; therefore we must have them. That is what I am saying. It is no use saying that there is nothing to prevent us having them. We must be committed to having them. That is what the amendment is about. The Government must be committed under the Bill to make sure that the expertise which will come from clinical medical experience will be represented on the regional health authority, the district health authority, the family health services authority and the hospital trusts. They all require that expertise.
I do not need to go on at great length. I believe I have made the point. When the Minister replies I hope that she will not give me—I was going to say nonsense, but I shall leave it there. I hope she will not give me the kinds of answers we have heard so far because frankly—I shall be honest with the Committee—I have been getting more and more angry. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Nowhere in the Bill do we say that we shall not or should not have a doctor as a non-executive member. I believe that in many cases we shall have medical practitioners on the authorities. I share the noble Lord's concern that all authorities should have access to the best professional advice. We have already discussed this in some detail on a previous amendment but I must repeat that I believe that specifying details of membership in primary legislation is not necessarily the best way of guaranteeing the availability of professional advice to which the noble Lord referred.
Under our reforms, regions will take on the important new role of co-ordinating the provision of services by districts and family health services authorities. In doing so, they will need to draw on a range of professional and medical advice, including that of general practitioners. But that advice may be obtained in a range of ways, through the royal colleges or individual experts, by developing new advisory mechanisms or by building on existing ones. Non-executive members will be appointed in the light of differing local circumstances and differing local needs.

199
As purchasers of health care, district health authorities will also need a wide range of professional and medical advice to help them assess their local health needs, to appraise service options and monitor the quality and range of services and the health of their population. Again, however, we do not wish to be prescriptive about how they obtain that advice. The optimum means of obtaining appropriate advice will vary from district to district. We expect most authorities to appoint their director of public health as an executive member. In some health authorities it may be appropriate for a GP to be a non-executive member of the district health authority. In others some other representative of the medical profession may be appropriate. However, we believe it is firmly in the court of the appointing region in England and the Secretary of State in Wales to make decisions in the light of local circumstances. To prescribe medical membership in the Bill would simply impose one form of advice over a range of others that might be more appropriate in the circumstances.
I believe that our reforms will help bring about much closer collaboration between primary care and hospital services. I believe that is important. Through their involvement in the contractual process general practitioners will play a key role in promoting that relationship. It is a relationship which I believe will evolve differently to meet specific requirements in different areas. It would be wrong for us to channel it at the outset in the way proposed. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I have one or two questions to ask on this matter. The amendment states that regional or area health authorities should,
"include at least one registered medical practitioner".
Therefore my first question concerns the position at the moment. Is it really the case that some regional and district health authorities do not contain a single medical practitioner representative? If that is not the case and they all have at least one, is it the intention of the Government that there shall be one or more health authorities without medical practitioner representatives? I should have thought that that was not the Government's intention. If such conditions exist already and the Government intend that they should exist in the future, why cannot they accept the amendment?
Baroness Hooper: The current position is that there is no statutory requirement on this matter although I understand that in practice all health authorities contain a medical practitioner representative at present. I have no doubt that most health authorities, if not all, will continue that practice in the future. There is nothing to prevent that process continuing.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: The noble Lord has asked the questions that needed to be asked. I do not see any point in continuing with this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 63, line 11, after ("prescribed") insert ("to include the Director of Public Health.")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 11, 24, 34, 43 and 53 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, all have similar objectives. Until about 20 years ago local authorities employed public health medical officers in local areas. However, under a previous reorganisation of the health service they were brought together with the regional and district medical officers into a category of consultant community physicians. They all became members or fellows of the Faculty of Community Medicine.
The profession has decided that it wishes to re-acknowledge the importance of the public health role of community physicians. The regional and district medical officers have now been renamed directors of public health. However, in Wales the comparable individual is called the chief administrative medical officer. The objective underlying these five amendments is to ensure that the executive members of the health authorities, both regional and district, will include under the prescribed number of officers the director of public health, or in Wales the chief administrative medical officer.
Since the inception of the National Health Service the chief officer of the authority and the regional or district medical officer have been regarded as individuals of comparable standing and status whose advice and administrative authority were regarded by the health authorities in question as being in all respects equal. The Bill now prescribes under the various schedules that the chief officer of the authority shall be an executive member. The purpose of these five amendments is to apply the same principle to the directors of public health and the chief medical administrative officer in Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Hunter of Newington: We are now talking about the new public health proposals which are to a substantial degree based on the chief medical officer's report to the department on the future of preventive medicine and public health. That report included a recommendation that the faculty should rename itself, reorientate itself, and retrain itself for a vital new purpose, which I understand the Government approve.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government accepted the chief medical officer's report and whether they have any difficulty in accepting the amendments as detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
Lord Winstanley: As briefly as I can I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Hunter. Members of the Committee may recollect that on previous occasions

201
I have mourned the loss of the old medical officer of health. That was a very important official. Everyone knew who he or she was. He or she was accessible and a person with great authority. I thought it unfortunate that that office disappeared.
I recollect the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has referred. I seem to recollect that we debated it in this Chamber. I also seem to recollect that when we debated that report the Government said that they accepted it. If they accepted it then, they should accept it now. The
202
group of amendments would be an improvement and would be helpful.
I do not in any way wish to criticise the newly titled community physicians, having worked closely with many of them, but I believe that the administrative change which led to the change in their official title weakened their authority and lessened their usefulness. If this measure, which is recommended by the profession itself, could restore some of that authority that would be for the public good.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: To return to the earlier discussion about purchasers and providers, the director of public health, through his particular discipline, is the best informed person in a particular community as to the needs of that community. Therefore it is particularly important that he should represent the purchasers. He can inform them as to their epidemiological needs because his department will have made a study of the matter. Therefore his place should be representing people in the district as purchasers of health care. He should be a member of every authority—regional or district. I do not know whether he would have time to serve also on the FHSA, but it would be nice to think that he could also be a member of that authority.
Lord Ennals: With even greater brevity, I should like to support the new title of director of public health. I support the amendment and the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Hunter of Newington.
Baroness Hooper: We accepted the Acheson Report. We have acted upon it by appointing directors of public health. One of the duties of the director of public health is to prepare an annual report which will be very important to the deliberations of the health authority. We expect that most regional and district health authorities will appoint the director of public health as one of their executive members in the light of the recommendations of the Acheson Report concerning the public health function. However, we do not believe that seeking to prescribe that the director of public health should automatically be a member, as is suggested by the amendments, would in itself make medical advice any more effective.
It is important that the advice is offered in a timely manner and at the right level. District health authorities as purchasers of health care will certainly need advice on assessing local health needs, appraising service options and monitoring the quality and range of services and the health of their population. We have already established that. It is important that that advice is independent of the district's own provider units. However, in the case of DHAs in England, we would not wish to be prescriptive about how they should obtain that advice. A wide variety of sources are open to them. I have referred to some of them, but they include the royal colleges and professional equivalents, individual national and regional experts, local advisory machinery and local medical committees.
As regards FHSAs' membership, they will have major new responsibilities for assessing local health needs and for developing services to meet those needs. Clearly, that cannot take place in isolation and must involve close working with local directors of public health and their teams. That is particularly important in the key areas of shared responsibility such as health promotion and disease prevention. We recognise that in the past co-operation between DHAs and FPCs has not always been as effective as it could have been, although a great deal of good
204
progress is now being made. For example, most FPCs are already drawing widely on the epidemiological skills and expertise of the directors of public health in developing health profiles and indicators of need for their local population as a basis for effective future planning.
The scope for collaboration and co-operation does not end there. Directors of public health and their staff must liaise closely and regularly with the FPCs' planning officers to carry out their own duties. Similarly, both FPC and DHA staff can participate in joint sub-committees or planning groups set up for the purpose. In addition, directors of public health will continue to be able to attend full FHSA meetings for any specific items of joint responsibility or mutual interest. Flexible local arrangements of that kind are preferable to rigid central requirements. They have the advantage of making maximum use of those valuable officers' time while at the same time ensuring the necessary public health input to FHSA planning.
A further issue that I should perhaps mention is that FPC boundaries, unlike those of other health authorities, correspond to local authority boundaries. Over half the FPCs in this country therefore relate to more than one DHA and, in one or two exceptional cases, up to as many as eight. It is clearly important that FHSAs should relate equally to and work closely with directors of public health in all the health authorities which relate to their locality. In most cases it would be inappropriate to appoint one director to the FHSAs over all others.
We do not therefore accept that there is any practical benefit to be gained from the amendment and I therefore trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Hunter of Newington: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question: is the national reflection of the policy that she has outlined the fact that the Chief Medical Officer attends the National Health Service Policy Board not by right, but by personal invitation?
Baroness Hooper: Yes. That is a good example of the right appointment being made on a personal basis.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I may also ask the noble Baroness a question. She said that she expected most of the authorities to have the director of public health as a member. Would she like her expectations to be fulfilled? That is all that we are seeking to do.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, and I expect that they will be fulfilled, but without the kind of prescriptive arrangement proposed in the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: The argument put forward by the noble Baroness in relation to the family health service authorities is persuasive. I accept the point that she made. However, I still cannot see why it is not possible to have the director of public health prescribed in the Bill as a member of the regional and district health authorities when

205
the chief officer of those authorities is nominated in the Bill as such a member. However, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment today but retain the right to come back on this issue again at Report stage after further consultation.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 63, line 21, at end insert:
(" () No person who is a member of the Regional Health Authority shall own shares in or be otherwise involved with the private medical sector.
() A register of Regional Health Authority members' interests shall be established in which members will declare their business interests. This register shall be open to public scrutiny.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 27, 37, 47 and 57. In speaking to this amendment I think it is as well to reflect on the arguments that the Government up to this moment have put forward on other amendments. Essentially those amendments urge that on the various authorities that we are considering this or that expertise ought to find a place. It ought to find a place on the face of the Bill.
To appreciate the absurdity of the Government's response to the amendments, one must bear in mind that from the way in which the Government have been arguing it logically follows that if, for example, on a regional health authority there were no doctors, nurses or medical people whatsoever, the Government would regard it as a perfectly acceptable state of affairs. That is what the Government argue and logically that is exactly the Govenment's position. It is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, put forward.
They have the concept of an efficient operating board on which they want to put the best people. If the best people happen to comprise a given number of managers of First Division football clubs, so be it. One ought to appreciate the nonsense that lies behind the Government's approach to these matters.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I never said anything of the sort and nothing that I said could conceivably have been interpreted in that sense.
Lord Peston: I beg the noble Lord to read his own speech and appreciate the logic of his own position. The logic, which is also the logic of the noble Baroness's position, is just that. It may be one of those people will be appointed and the Government would like that; but it may be that it is not one of those people, in which case the Government could live with that as well. One ought to appreciate the nonsense that is being offered to us on amendment after amendment. I bring up that point as a preliminary remark to my amendment, which represents the reverse position. My amendment concerns who ought not to be on those authorities. There is now the converse case. I shall be interested to discover how the Government get round that point.
206
I do not believe that the question of conflict of interest and matters to do with standards in public life arise solely because of the Bill that is before the Committee today. It is a problem that those of us who are concerned about the National Health Service, to take an example, have looked at with some worry for a very long time. I am often concerned about the fact that on existing bodies one finds nominated people who do not use the National Health Service. I have often wondered what they personally feel is their role when they have not found the National Health Service appropriate for themselves, even though they feel perfectly happy to be appointed to those bodies.
That is one aspect. What worries me much more is the fact that people have been appointed or a fortiori are very likely to be appointed, so far as I understand under this Bill, who have conflicts of interest with their role on a regional authority, district authority or FHSA. The Committee is well aware of questions of standards in public life. In this Chamber these matters are taken very seriously indeed. On the whole, noble Lords try to remind colleagues when they have an interest. Also on the whole, to say the least noble Lords are chary of voting on matters which may affect their own interests. So we know about these matters.
I shall concentrate on the regional health authority for the moment because the logic of the argument applies everywhere. As I understand it, at the moment under the Bill it is perfectly possible to appoint to a regional health authority a person who has interests in, as it were, the private medical sector. I use the term broadly. Certainly it includes one who could make gains as a result of the contracts which are laid out or as a result of the success or failure—possibly the failure—of certain activities in the region. My view is that if a person who has such an interest had a proper standard of behaviour, he would simply say, "I am not qualified," and would not agree to be appointed. That is what one means by standards in public life. However, he may not say so. The reason for putting down the amendment is to provide that such persons should not be appointed, whether or not they say that.
I regard the related amendment as supplementary and second best. At the very least regional health authority members, district health authority members, and FHSA members should declare any business interests that are relevant to their sitting on these bodies. In other words, at the minimum they should be willing to make it public knowledge that they are aware of possible conflicts of interest, that the public would know that, and that they would not act in a way that was in their own interest.
Let me go further. I have tried to scrutinise the company legislation as it applies here. Much English law deals with conflict of interest. I have not yet been able to get the position straight; I am trying to obtain advice on it. Could someone who was, for example, part owner of a private sector hospital sit on one of these bodies? Would that properly fall within companies legislation? I have not been able to obtain an answer to that.

207
Those are my anxieties. No matter what argument may be put forward on the ground of efficiency, such people should not be appointed to these bodies under any circumstance whatsoever.
To return to my slight conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I do not believe that there is a great shortage of excellent people to serve. We can therefore do without any people for whom there would be any conflict of interest.
Baroness Hooper: I have tried to establish over previous amendments that we do not wish to be too prescriptive about appointments. I intend to be entirely consistent in relation to the amendment.
There are in any event safeguards. The membership and procedure regulations for both health authorities and FHSAs make it very clear that a chairman or member of a health authority is required to declare any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in a contract or any other matter that is the subject of consideration by the health authority. He or she may not then take part in any consideration or discussion of the contract or other matter or vote on any question in respect of it. This requirement also has teeth. The membership and procedure regulations empower the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment of a chairman or member who has not declared a pecuniary interest as required under the regulations. These provisions will be retained in the revised membership and procedure regulations. We do not therefore see any need to alter an arrangement that works well at present.
Individuals with connections with the private medical sector may well have experience that could be useful to the National Health Service. It would be pointless, and over-restrictive, to legislate totally to exclude such people from membership of all health authorities and FHSAs.
I have outlined the current provisions that adequately cover the declaration of interest when any contract is under consideration. As my honourable friend made clear during Committee stage in another place, health authority appointments will not be made where it is clear that there will be a substantial conflict of interest in relation to that authority. That might be because of the extent of the potential member's interest in private health care or some other matter concerned with the health authority's work.
A requirement to establish a register of members' interests can also raise more problems than it solves, particularly in respect of bodies which essentially are managerial and not representative. It would be difficult to draw up an adequate definition of what is an interest. It would also be a massive and expensive operation to police such a scheme across 14 regional health authorities, 199 district health authorities and 98 FHSAs. I fear that the introduction of such a scheme would create more problems than it would solve.
I conclude by emphasising the fact that we believe that the current arrangements which are based on statutory requirements work well. Therefore there is no need for the amendments.
10 p.m.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I do not accept that the present arrangements work well. As regards a conflict of interest, when the Bill becomes an Act the problem will be intensified. To say the least, I utter my normal warning as I have in respect of other legislation.
I am genuinely puzzled about the register. I do not believe that the question of definition arises. I should say to the relevant people, "I should like you to specify what your relevant interests are". I should assume that I was dealing with men and women of honour, and that they would state their interests. That is done in this Chamber where there are no definitions. I should simply rise and say, "I am the owner and director of a private hospital and I must declare that before discussing the NHS". I hasten to add that I am not the owner or director of a private hospital, but when I speak in this Chamber I am in no doubt about what I must say. As a university teacher, I dare not speak on the question of university pay. It is pretty bad but I never emphasise the point as Members are well aware. Therefore, I do not understand the Minister's point about the register.
Although I shall not press the amendment at this hour, I believe that the Minister should reflect on it. The question of standards in public life is not trivial. We must always be vigilant because difficulties are always likely to arise in this area. When we have the first of possible scandals in the next few years I do not want to be the one to say, "I told you that it was in danger of happening". However, I have made my point and moaned on for long enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 63, line 21, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding sub-paragraph at least one person appointed under sub-paragraph 1(b) above shall be a person with special knowledge of the needs of disabled persons and in selecting any such person regard shall be had to the desirability of the person with that knowledge being a disabled person.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 36, 45 and 55. I wish to read out the amendment in case any Member of the Committee believes that it is prescriptive about a disabled person having to be a member of an appropriate health authority. It states;
"Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding sub-paragraph at least one person appointed under sub-paragraph 1(b) above shall be a person with special knowledge of the needs of disabled persons and in selecting any such person regard shall be had to the desirability of the person with that knowledge being a disabled person".
We now know a great deal more about disabled people, especially since the publication of the OPCS survey which disclosed that in this country there are more than 6 million. Not all are seriously disabled or need special medical or social care. However, the problem of disability and the need to shape the National Health Service to meet the challenges is greater than we believed before the publication of the survey results. That is not only because we know more but because many handicapped people are

209
living longer. They create a special problem because they live into their 40s or 50s when their parents are no longer able to cope. That is a community care problem but also an NHS problem because all too often such disabled people are being looked after by their families and then have to be admitted into the care of the National Health Service. Incidentally, that is another argument for involving lay people in health authorities to see the need for continuing care.
Further, as people continue to live longer the proportion of disabled people inevitably increases. Many disabled people are playing extremely valuable roles on health authorities and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is living proof of that. Those people, one fears, may be dropped from the new type of health authority which has been described. It may turn out to be this or that; the Government do not really seem to mind.
The fourth argument which many of us with varying degrees of disability can confirm is that for most people illness or accident is a temporary break in a pattern of good health. That is not so for disabled people;. For them it is part of their continuous pattern of life. Any of us who are disabled recognise that and are much more liable to call on the health service for assistance because of disability.
Fifthly, services for disabled people are still very patchy and should be improved. This amendment is consistent with the main thrust of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 which refers to representation of disabled people. Unhappily, significant parts of that Act have still not been implemented. That is perhaps an important reason for this amendment to be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: All authorities will continue to attach great importance to the views and needs of disabled people who are, after all, a significant client group for the National Health Service. However, we do not believe that the interests of disabled people are best served by statutory representation on the membership of an authority. As I have emphasised, we shall welcome applications and recommendations for membership from many quarters. Of course there is nothing in our proposals to prevent the appointment of disabled people or those with a particular knowledge of a disability. In saying that, I recognise the wording of the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, particularly drew our attention.
At present, some members are disabled people and I am aware of the extremely useful contribution which they make. As has been said, we have an example in our midst in the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is a member of the Yorkshire regional health authority. However, I believe that people from all groups would prefer to be judged on equal terms on their merits rather than be appointed on some sort of quota system.
I have already emphasised that all authorities will be expected to obtain the best professional advice in order to meet the health needs of their population. That includes advice on how to obtain effective
210
services for their disabled population working in liaison with social services authorities and voluntary organisations. Such advice would not necessarily be obtainable through one individual member of the authority whatever his or her expertise and experience.
Therefore, I believe that the proposed amendments would move back authorities towards making representative appointments. I also believe that the best interests of disabled people will be served by availability to the authorities of a wide body of advice and information. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she agrees that we are better at dealing with the disabled than we would otherwise be because of the number of disabled people in this Chamber.
Baroness Hooper: I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that we have strong and very effective representation from the disabled Members of this Chamber. I equally underline the fact that there is no statutory requirement to have disabled Members of the Committee. That will apply equally to representation on health authorities.
Lord Ennals: I certainly did not intend to suggest that there should be a statutory requirement for a minimum number of disabled people in this Committee. We all eventually become disabled, if we do not die first. However, the point made by my noble friend Lord Pitt is correct—that we perhaps show a greater interest in disability and the services for disabled people in this place because we are forever conscious of the subject. I believe that that would also apply to a health authority if one of its members was constantly aware of how to meet the needs of disabled people.
I feel that it will be necessary, with some of my noble friends, to return to the issue of whether any part of the Bill should specify that some interests should find their place on health authorities. However, having made my case on this item and the Minister having made her traditional reply, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 63, line 21, at end insert:
{"(3) Before he appoints a member of a Regional Health Authority other than the chairman, the Secretary of State shall consult with respect to the appointment such bodies as he may recognise as being, either in that region or generally, representative respectively of medical practitioners, dental practitioners, nurses, midwives and health visitors, registered pharmacists and opthalmic and dispensing opticians, or representatives of such other professions as appear to him to be concerned.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to clarify my earlier remarks on Amendment No. 17. I said that the Secretary of State should consult those bodies which are representative of medical practitioners, dental practitioners, nurses, midwives, health

211
visitors and practically everybody of importance, so that he is well briefed. I went on to say that what I suspected the Secretary of State was looking for in the persons to be appointed, whether they were health visitors, dispensing opticians or physicians, was management competence. I recognise that the wording of the amendment is untidy, and I may well bring it back at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I warmly support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. I presume that he was speaking also to Amendment No. 28. It is a way of dealing with some of the other problems that we experienced during the course of the evening—that there should be a pattern of consultation. I take my pattern of consultation beyond the professional bodies listed in the amendment, though I certainly include them.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, said that he may wish to return to this amendment. Together with him, I may wish to return to it at a later stage in our proceedings.
Baroness Hooper: Briefly, since we have already discussed this amendment, I repeat that the people making appointments will naturally wish to seek nominations from and consult with the widest possible range of organisations to identify the most able candidates. However, in referring to specific bodies the amendment excludes other sources of professional nominations and other bodies which could perhaps provide useful advice about appointments. I reiterate that we do not believe statutory consultation is necessary.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: I have one point to make in the light of the Minister's remarks. A number of professional bodies mentioned in the amendment are on the way up. To be named as important professional bodies which should be consulted among others is an important fillip for nurses, midwives, pharmacists, opticians and others. That is why we shall bring the amendment back in this amount of detail. We shall do so not to exclude other people—the Secretary of State may consult whom he wishes—but to make it clear that these important professions on which the National Health Service depends so strongly, and on which in future it will depend in order to save money by not sending patients to hospital, should be named. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 37 not moved.]
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 37A:
Page 64, line 3, at end insert:
("Special Health Authorities
A Special Health Authority shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State.

(b) a prescribed number of persons appointed by him including at least one from those nominated by the University of London in consultation with the relevant Postgraduate Institute or Postgraduate School.").

The noble Lord said: The Bill makes it plain that the old order which established special health
212
authorities is to remain in force and that therefore the special health authorities which are associated with the postgraduate institutes of the University of London and with the Royal Postgraduate Medical School are to continue and will continue to be funded directly by the Department of Health. I and those who support me in the amendment welcome that enormously. The arguments for having at least one member of the special health authority appointed from those nominated by the relevant postgraduate institute are just as cogent if not more so in the case of the special health authorities as they are in the case of regional and district health authorities. I gained the clear impression that the Committee thought that the arguments were cogent in this case. In the case of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, where the chiefs of service are all full-time academics paid for by the university, the case is completely overwhelming.
The purpose of the proposed addition is simply to incorporate into the Bill provisions for universities' membership of special health authorities similar to those proposed in our other amendment for regional and district authorities. It would bring all the authorities into line with the NHS trusts over the matter of university membership.
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness say in her reply to Amendment No. 5 and the amendments grouped with it—I hope I heard her correctly—that the Government accepted the arguments as they applied to special health authorities. Therefore, I look forward to an appropriate modification of the Bill when it comes to Report stage. I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say on that point when she comes to reply. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: As a special trustee of the Hammersmith Hospital, I suppose I owe my office to my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. There is total inter-dependence between the Hammersmith Hospital and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School. I very much hope that my noble friend will accept that there should be academic membership on this and on the other special health authorities; not by regulation at the whim of successive Secretaries of State, but by statute incorporated in the Bill.
Lord Peston: I reveal yet again that I am connected with the University of London and with at least one of the postgraduate institutes. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has just said, it follows logically that the reply given by the noble Baroness to the earlier amendments on university representation should carry over at least to the point of her agreeing to think the matter through further; namely, that she will consider this amendment with the others. Since there has been an interval of a couple of hours perhaps she has had time to reflect and is now willing to accept the amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, tell us whether he has it in mind that it will automatically be the dean of the institute who

213
is appointed? The special health authority of which I am a member has the dean of the associated institute as its member. Does the noble Lord wish to be as specific as that with a special health authority or is he simply wishing to have anyone with an academic calling?
Lord Dainton: I want only to have that person who is most competent to serve. I go back to the principle of competence rather than representativeness. In some cases it may be the dean or someone else. In the case of the Royal Post-Graduate Medical School, I believe the Minister knows already that we have a special problem. Under the Bill as it now stands, and since all the chiefs of service are full-time university employees, we are in an interesting paradoxical position. As I understand it, under the Bill the medical director will be ex-officio if it is a trust, and an executive director of the institution.
In the case of the Royal Post-Graduate Medical School the medical director is bound to be a university employee and not a trust employee. Therefore, a very interesting administrative paradox arises. From what I understand of private correspondence, the Government have already accepted that the matter can be resolved in that case. I mention that as an example of the complexities which can arise if one nominates a particular office holder. I want to see in all cases—and I am sure that it will happen if the University of London is approached properly—the person best fitted to serve through experience and competence chosen by the university as a nominee to fill the post on the special health authority.
Baroness Hooper: The effect of the amendment would be that all special health authorities, not just those for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, would be required to have a postgraduate institute member. Clearly, that would not be appropriate. However, I appreciate the intention behind the amendment. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Hunter, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman on that point.
The special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals will be reconstituted along similar lines to the regional health authorities and the district health authorities. However, there will be some differences in order to reflect their national role and important academic and teaching links. As now, their membership will include someone from the relevant postgraduate institute who will be appointed as a non-executive member. I have already said this in response to my noble friend Lord Jenkin with respect to the Hammersmith. In fact, on the point of the medical membership of the Hammersmith, the Bill was amended in another place to allow for the particular problem to be resolved.
The non-executive member, as with all the new non-executive members of health authorities, will be appointed on the basis of his or her individual skills and experience rather than in a strictly representative capacity.
All special health authorities including those for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals are, as
214
many of your Lordships must know, established by an order made under Section 11 of the National Health Service Act 1977 which specifies their constitutions. The terms of office of all the current members of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals will be brought to an end under Clause 1(4) of the Bill and a new constitution order will then be laid under the terms of which the new members will be appointed.
I hope that with that information I have been able to reassure the noble Lords the movers of the amendment that their aims will be met in the procedure for the new order for the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, and that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Peston: I certainly do not wish to press the withdrawal of the amendment, but I should like to have some clarification in case I did not quite follow what the noble Baroness said. Did she say that this matter would be dealt with by order and that the order will essentially meet what is said in the amendment? Is that a fair summary? I think that is what I heard her say.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, that is a correct interpretation of what I said.
Lord Dainton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a further question. Will that order be available for us to see at the Report stage?
Baroness Hooper: No, I do not think so.
Lord Dainton: But there will be a firm commitment to it at that stage?
Baroness Hooper: Yes. We are required under Section 11 of the National Health Service Act to have a constitution order and, as I understand it, it will be implemented through the negative procedures of Parliament; so it will therefore come before Parliament.
Lord Dainton: In those circumstances I am willing to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37B, 37C, 38. 39. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 64, line 11, after ("Authority") insert ("two of whom shall be general medical practitioners and one of whom shall be on the medical list of that Family Health Services Authority.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 42 which stands in my name and which I notice is grouped with Amendment No. 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Unless I choose my words with very great care, we shall shortly be back to talking about representatives. I have no wish to be discourteous to the noble Baroness, but I hope she will realise that I am not so naive that I do not realise that her reply

215
to this amendment has been written long before I have spoken to it. Therefore, I shall forgive her if she refers to representatives, but perhaps she will let me say that I have no intention of suggesting representatives in this amendment.
All the amendment seeks to ensure is that the FHSA, which is the body which is responsible for domiciliary health services and particularly for general practice, has general practitioners on it, and I have proposed two. I want it not to be representative of anybody, but if it is to administer and be responsible for the general practitioners in its area it cannot possibly do that unless it has people on it who really know about general practice and by that I mean the general practitioners themselves. I realise that many patients think that they know all about general practice and, indeed, many of them do know a great deal; but the fact remains that if this body is going to be able to discharge its functions properly, it must have some general practitioners one of whom should be, in the words of the amendment,
"on the medical list of that Family Health Services Authority".
I say that because authority areas vary greatly and the medical problems in many areas are different. A general practitioner for a different area may have a totally different view of matters. There is a need for someone who has practised, or who is practising, medicine in that particular area.
The amendment says nothing about how such people will be found: it is left to those who will make the appointments. However, it makes it a requirement that in assembling a team the Secretary of State shall ensure that such a team, which will be in charge of administering general practice in that area, will contain two general medical practitioners. I must point out to the noble Baroness that unless this is done the team will fail. Indeed, she may say that it will.
These people will emerge in some kind of way, as other people do in various political outfits, other than by being elected or appointed. But, however they appear, if the body which is responsible for domiciliary and family medical services does not contain general medical practitioners, it will not be competent to carry out its work. That is all I have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I rise to express my support for this amendment. I do not intend to delay Members of the Committee for very long. The new family health services authority will have great power over general practitioners. It is sensible—and I use that word advisedly—that the authority should contain people who practise medicine, who understand the problems involved and who can therefore make sensible decisions. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
On Second Reading, I suggested that there should be two such practitioners: one who would be a fund holder, and one who would not. However, that consideration does not necessarily matter. So long as we have two, one of whom is a practising member, I shall be happy. We must have people on the authority who are practitioners.
Lord Ennals: I wish merely to say that I support what has been said by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
Lord Henley: The noble Lords, Lord Winstanley, Lord Pitt and Lord Ennals propose that we should include two general practitioners on the FHSAs rather than the one proposed in the Bill. We do not accept that proposal. The professional members on the new authorities will not be the only source of professional advice which the authorities will have. No individual or even two individuals, whatever their background or experience, could ever provide the full range of comprehensive advice which FHSAs will need in the future.
Under Promoting Better Health, FPCs have already taken on new responsibilities for actively managing (as opposed to simply administering) family practitioner services in their areas. They will take on further new functions, such as indicative prescribing and monitoring GP fund-holding under the Bill, To fulfil those tasks effectively, they will need access to a wide range of independent professional advice from a variety of expert sources.
FPCs are already appointing independent medical advisers for that purpose. We provided additional funds in the current year—that is, 1990–1991—to enable them to do so. Some FPCs are now also appointing independent pharmaceutical advisers. In addition, FHSAs will have the freedom to appoint professional experts to any sub-committees or working parties which they decide to set up. Therefore, it is clear that appointing an additional member to the authority itself would not provide any wider professional input than can be obtained from these sources. Instead, it would simply increase the size of the authority, making it more cumbersome and a less effective management body. I trust that bearing that in mind the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said and not a word of it has taken me by surprise. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 64, line 22, at end insert:
("(3) The Secretary of State, before he appoints a member of a Family Health Services Authority other than the chairman, shall consult with respect to the appointment such bodies as the Secretary of State may recognise as being representative of general medical practitioners in that particular locality.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is self-explanatory. I await the reply of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord made an admirably brief speech. He suggests in the amendment that local medical committees should have exclusive rights to be consulted over the appointment of all members of the new authorities other than the chairman. This we feel is clearly inappropriate. Under Promoting

217
Better Health the FPCs, or FHSAs as they will become, have been given wider responsibilities than in the past for actively managing the family practitioner services and practitioners' contracts. It would be inappropriate therefore for local medical committees whose raison d'être is to represent the views of local doctors to have exclusive rights of consultation over appointing members to the authorities which will be responsible for managing the doctors' own contracts. It would be inappropriate even if the proposal were limited to the appointment of the GP member.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State, before he appoints a member of a Family Health Services Authority other than the chairman, shall consult with respect to the appointment such bodies as the Secretary of State may recognise as being representative of general medical practitioners in that particular locality".
What is restrictive about that, except for the locality? The Secretary of State has the power to consult all the people whom he regards as representative of practitioners in the area. What is wrong with having such consultation? I cannot understand what is wrong with the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 57 not moved.]
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 65, line 10, at end insert:
("(8A) At the end of sub-paragraph (1A) of the said paragraph 10 there shall be inserted—
"(1AA) Regulations or directions under sub-paragraph (1) above shall provide that the employment of staff in the house officer and the senior house officer grades shall be on terms which provide that:

(a) the number of hours which they can be required to work each week be subject to a maximum of 72, and

(b) they cannot be required to work for a continuous period of more than 24 hours, and

(c) they are provided with a minimum rest period of at least 8 hours between periods of duty."").

The noble Lord said: It is just over a year since your Lordships' House passed a Private Member's Bill which consisted of a measure very similar to the one suggested in this amendment. The hours and conditions of work of junior doctors have become known to wide sections of the public as a result of the publicity surrounding the passage of that Bill last year. Most people were surprised and frankly appalled that a group of responsible young professionals had to endure such stressful conditions, frequently leading to sleep deprivation and fatigue. These same professionals frequently had to make difficult decisions literally affecting the survival of patients.
I am aware that the Government themselves accept the goal of a 72-hour week for junior hospital doctors and are encouraging discussions between those most concerned, in particular managers and consultants. Mrs. Virginia Bottomley herself has taken this problem to heart. Junior doctors are hopeful that she will be able to improve the situation. But although average contracted hours may have been falling slowly—from some 89 hours a few years
218
ago to 83 or 84 in the past few years—the actual hours worked and on duty do not seem to be falling. In a carefully conducted 1988-89 survey, commissioned by the Department of Health, Dr. Robin Dowie found that junior hospital doctors averaged 90 hours per week either working or on duty. That is more than the officially reported contracted hours because many doctors have to work more hours than they are contracted to get the work done. They do not go home at 5 o'clock but very often at 9 o'clock on the nights when they are not on duty.
This is not the time or place to go over the whole story again but it is clear that because of the increasing turnover of patients in hospitals and the increasingly sophisticated investigations and treatments available the intensity of the work of junior hospital doctors within their contracted hours is growing.
There are measures which could be taken immediately to improve the situation. However, that involves changes in working practices and perhaps more shift work for junior hospital doctors, more cross cover between consultant "firms", more teamwork and less layers of cover, and other such measures. I realise that the Government are pressing on with trying to ensure that those changes take place. The reason why the hospital junior staffs committee of the BMA is reluctantly pressing for legislation—I emphasise the word "reluctantly" -—is because of the slow pace of change. If there is a legal target to reach, problems, bottlenecks and habits which seem unchangeable suddenly become more malleable. That would be more likely to occur if there were penalties on health authorities, for example, for non-compliance with the law. I believe the Government should have some sympathy with the legislation sought by this amendment because it would help them to achieve their own avowed target of a 72 hour week for junior hospital doctors. Unfortunately, despite good intentions, the present situation is virtually a stalemate.
The longer-term aim is to achieve a 60 hour week. That would require an increase in the consultant grade at a rate of some 4 per cent. per annum over the next 10 years. Therefore achieving a balance in the hospital service could become a reality.
This country has a far lower proportion of recognised specialists compared with its total number of medical professionals than other developed countries. The projected increase of 100 consultants over the next three years mentioned in the White Paper amounts to only an extra 0.2 per cent. per annum over the current inadequate 2 per cent. increase.
There are many doctors at senior registrar level who are ready immediately to take on consultant responsibilities if the posts are created. They do not need a retinue of junior hospital doctors, senior registrars, junior registrars, senior house officers and house officers, each costing half a million pounds. They could be appointed as extras in a firm. I understand that I am straying from the point somewhat and that we are in a hurry. However, I fear very much that if the amendment is not accepted

219
we may see increasing dissatisfaction among junior hospital doctors. I do not see the necessary changes occurring other than through legislation. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I support the amendment. Members of the Committee will remember that I supported my noble friend when he piloted his Bill through this Chamber.
We now have an opportunity of forcing the other place to discuss the matter. The Bill that we passed was not discussed in the other place. If we put the amendment in the Bill, the issue will have to be discussed in the other place. My plea to the Government is not to resist the amendment and to let it be included in the Bill. If they wish to resist it when the Bill reaches the other place, they can do so, but let the amendment go into the Bill now.
As my noble friend has said, the Minister is apprised of the problem and is working on it. The inclusion of the amendment in the Bill will strengthen his hand.
Much of what my noble friend has said is true. Flexibility in terms of organisation could bring us to the 72 hour limit. If legislation states that doctors must not work more than 72 hours, ways will be found to make sure that that happens. I plead with the Minister not to resist the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, the Government have accepted that it is sensible to work towards a target of an average week of duty of 72 hours for all junior hospital doctors. However, it would be irresponsible to agree to a maximum 72 hour week for any grade of junior doctors without a clear and agreed view from all the parties as to how that could be achieved.
As will be known to many Members of the Committee, a limitation on the hours of house officers and senior house officers could, for example, require a substantial increase in the number of doctors in those grades. It is by no means clear that they could be recruited in every case. Moreover, any uncontrolled increase in the number of house officers and senior house officers would run counter to current efforts to reform the staffing structure. The main task in achieving a balance, which was agreed with professional and National Health Service interests, is to increase the number of consultants while limiting the number of junior doctor posts to the number required to fill future career vacancies. In our view, there is no single solution to this long-standing issue.
That is not to say that considerable progress has not been made. We launched a further major initiative in June 1988. Regional reports indicate that by September 1990 approximately one-in-eight junior doctors will be on onerous one-in-three rotas. That compares very favourably with the situation at the start of the initiative when more than a quarter of junior doctors were estimated to be on rotas worse than one-in-three.
Of course more needs to be done, but passing the law will not of itself solve the problem. It requires a
220
concerted attack from all the parties, including the profession itself, which has a major responsibility for organising juniors' training, setting local rotas and so on. It is for that reason that my honourable friend the Minister of Health recently met representatives of the Joint Consultants Committee—which includes the Royal Colleges, the British Medical Association and National Health Service management—to discuss a way forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned. The meeting agreed that further progress required the active involvement of all the parties because of the complex nature of the problem.
As a first step a working group will explore a number of the key issues. It will report back to the main group, chaired by my honourable friend the Minister for Health, in the early summer. The working group will look at specific aspects of working practices, terms and conditions of service including remuneration and contracts, manpower, education and training issues.
I submit that my honourable friend the Minister for Health's recent meeting has agreed a mechanism for taking the work forward. We all hope that that will quickly lead to further progress. In order to sustain the commitment of all the parties concerned, the group should be given every opportunity and encouragement to move forward in that way. Considerable progress has been made since the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was discussed in this Chamber. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rea: Despite the Minister's words, I do not think that progress is fast enough or is likely to be fast enough without legislation. I shall perhaps seek an opportunity to divide the Chamber on the issue at a later stage. I do not think that this moment is right because, unless there are many people in the woodwork, I doubt whether we should even achieve a quorum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Health Boards, the Common Services Agency and state hospitals]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 27, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) In carrying out his duties under this section and section 27 and Schedule 5 below in respect of appointing members to Health Boards, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies that seem to him to be representative of the medical and nursing professions, and organisations representative of consumers.")
The noble Lord said: This is the first amendment that deals exclusively with Scotland. It is a pity that we reach it at such a late hour because there are differences between the Scottish and English legislation.
As it relates to England, the Bill, is virtually a new Bill whereas, as it relates to Scotland, it basically constitutes a series of amendments to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. In addition the English and Scottish boards are quite different. They are quite dissimilar in construction. The 15 health

221
boards in Scotland are all single tier and the responsibility for the appointment of board members lies with the Secretary of State alone. No other body makes direct appointments. The Minister must be aware that, with the power given to the Secretary of State in the Bill, he can dismiss all the members of all the existing health boards and appoint whomsoever he wishes instead all at one time, so he could effect a complete change through the Bill. That is a great power which could change the composition of all 15 Scottish boards overnight. It may not be done, but the power is there to do it and we are concerned about the ideological basis of such a sweeping change.
Our experience of recent appointments has reinforced that unease. Examples were given in another place during the Committee stage of the Bill of large areas of Scotland with little or more frequently no parliamentary or local government elected representatives from the Conservative Party, in which good, competent people were not reappointed when their time in office expired in order to make room for what could only be described as ideologically suitable or acquiescent people approved by the Under-Secretary of State responsible for health in Scotland.
There is no Scottish Minister on the Front Bench opposite and the Ministers there may not be aware of this. fact. It is a problem and the Scottish press is full of it all the time. There is a distinct difference between the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State. What we would entrust to the Secretary of State we have less confidence in entrusting to the Under-Secretary of State responsible for health. That is not personal; it is purely ideological.
Lord Ennals: It should be the other way round.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It should be the other way round, but I am afraid that it is not because the Under-Secretary of State also happens by sheer chance to be the appointed chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, a position which yields a certain amount of power. That is important and it is no use pretending that it is not so. The Scottish press, of all shades of opinion, is full of it. When we were in office, we as a party never behaved that way. We were never as partisan as that. If a future Labour Government behaved that way, I should be greatly disappointed.
We should like to emphasise the importance of consultation. That is what the amendment is all about It is mentioned in the Bill, but we want to emphasise the point even more so that the health board does not slide from what may in some cases be harmless patronage into something more sinister which we believe is the single-minded aim of some extremists in the party opposite, although I am sure that the noble Baroness who is to reply does not share that view. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland with the way in which appointments are being made. If the noble Baroness knew the situation she would feel—just as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, would feel—uncomfortable trying
222
to defend some of the decisions that are made. This is a very important point and I hope that the Committee will pay attention to my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Statutory arrangements for consultation already apply to the appointment of Scottish health board members and are not changed by this Bill. I shall repeat my first sentence as it is important. Statutory arrangements for consultation already apply to the appointment of Scottish health board members and are not changed by this Bill.
Clause 26 brings to an end the appointment of current members of health boards and this paves the way for the new streamlined health boards which we intend. But it will be seen that the clause does not provide for the appointment of the new boards. That is because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be using his existing powers under Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 to appoint the new members just as he appointed the present members.
Subsection (3) of Section 2 obliges the Secretary of State, before appointing members to health boards, to consult local authorities, relevant universities and organisations representative not only of the medical and nursing professions but also the dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic professions, and such other organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned.
The Committee will see that the Secretary of State is already under a duty to consult representatives of the medical and nursing professions. Although there is no equivalent duty in relation to organisations representative of consumers, in practice the Secretary of State consults the local health councils which, under Section 7 of the 1978 Act, exist:
"to represent the interests of the public in the health service".
There are no plans at all to change those arrangements.
Of course, Clause 27 of the Bill brings into the picture a new body: the special health board. Clause 27(b) gives the Secretary of State the power by order to apply, in relation to any special health board, relevant provisions of the 1978 Act which apply to the health boards. I agree that paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill is not mentioned in Clause 27, nor would that be appropriate, because, for instance, it speaks of:
"each local authority in the area of the health board concerned"
and again:
"any university appearing to the Secretary of State to have an interest in the provision of health services in that area".
Neither of those provisions sits happily with the kind of all-Scotland body dealing with health education which, as the Committee knows, it is the intention to create as a special health board. Nor would the two groups mentioned in the amendment necessarily be appropriate for all special health boards which one could imagine, although, as we have no other potential special health boards in mind at present, I can give no concrete examples.
It is therefore better to leave the flexibility which Clause 27 at present gives to the Secretary of State.

223
But I can certainly undertake that he would consult all bodies with a substantial interest in the subject of the special health board, and that would usually include the professional organisations and organisations representative of consumers, although the nature of the consumers might vary.
With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I was aware of the points that she made about what was contained in Schedule 1 to the Bill. I tabled the amendment to emphasise the great unease felt in Scotland about the way in which appointments have been made.
I do not wish to become too personal about the matter, but I can give examples of quite outrageous appointments that have been made in Scotland which I find totally unrepresentative of the people of Scotland. As I said in the course of my earlier remarks, well respected, very able people were removed in order that patronage by a particular group could be emphasised. I do not wish to continue further. Having put down the amendment again to emphasise its importance, and having aired it in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  MONEY LAUNDERING: TASK FORCE REPORT
  MONEY LAUNDERING: TASK FORCE REPORT
  DNA PROFILING: AVAILABILITY AND TESTING
  DNA PROFILING: AVAILABILITY AND TESTING
  VICTORIA EMBANKMENT: PUBLIC TRANSPORT
  VICTORIA EMBANKMENT: PUBLIC TRANSPORT
  DISABLEMENT INCOME GROUP: SURVEY COMPARISONS
  DISABLEMENT INCOME GROUP: SURVEY COMPARISONS
  FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS: POLICY
  FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS: POLICY
  HONG KONG: UK EXPORTS
  HONG KONG: UK EXPORTS
  BASS FISHERIES: PROTECTION MEASURES
  BASS FISHERIES: PROTECTION MEASURES